John's blog - www.johnvhansen.com - Walking Dead, Thehttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm
John V. Hansen's blogen-usThu, 22 Feb 2018 02:07:53 -0700Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:09:00 -0700BlogCFChttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssno-reply@johnvhansen.comno-reply@johnvhansen.comno-reply@johnvhansen.comJohn's blog - www.johnvhansen.comhttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm
noNegan, the scariest TV villain of all time, has turned ‘The Walking Dead’ into a sloghttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2017/1/16/Negan-the-scariest-TV-villain-of-all-time-has-turned-The-Walking-Dead-into-a-slog
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-negan-rick.jpg">
Inevitability doesn't make for great TV. That's what fans of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> are finding out in this seventh season (which will resume Feb. 12). It began with a masterful (if utterly harrowing) episode: Negan (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) viciously kills Glenn and Abraham. It was a carefully executed – no pun intended – episode that has informed every millisecond of Negan's screen time since then, especially when he has his barb-wire-laced baseball bat in hand: We wonder if he will cut loose again.
[More]
On one hand, this was a brilliant play on the part of the "Walking Dead" showrunners. Every Negan scene is tense, yet they don't have to spend money on fight choreography or special effects; they can just let Morgan channel this totally on-point psychopath. On the other hand, these scenes are so emotionally draining that I have found the first half of Season 7 to be the exact opposite of fun to watch; my facial expression throughout this season has been the same as Eugene's. And shouldn't TV – even emotionally and intellectually challenging TV like "The Walking Dead" – be fun to watch? Apparently viewers think so, as a lot of folks have <a href="http://screenrant.com/walking-dead-season-7-ratings-drop/" target="_blank">bailed on the show.</a>
It's a relief now when a non-Negan episode pops up, such as episode 2, "The Well" (Carol and Morgan meet King Ezekiel), episode 5, "Go Getters" (Maggie and Sasha go to Hilltop), and episode 6, "Swear" (Tara meets a community of tough women in the woods). But these tend to not be classic episodes; indeed, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/11/20/the-walking-dead-season-7-episode-5-review-the-worst-episode-ever/#3b77be7be683" target="_blank">one critic</a> called "Go Getters" the series' worst episode, and it's tough to argue with that.
The pieces are being put in place for these various communities – as well as some of Negan's people, such as Dwight – to team up and "rise up" (Season 7's tagline) against Negan by season's end. The libertarian "bring your own subtext" elements that have always made "Walking Dead" ripe for blog posts are still there, and – for better or worse – more overt: In episode 7, "Sing Me a Song," Spencer tells Rosita that collecting stuff for Negan is like "paying taxes," and Negan tells his followers that his rules are necessary for the return of "civilization."
But the storytelling is an exercise in inexorability, which is why these episodes have even less re-watch value than the similarly sluggish "Lost," which was drenched in enough literary references to reward an obsessive person, and which wasn't quite so telegraphed. This is capital-G Good TV, but it's also bad TV. We're slogging toward the arc's conclusion another eight episodes from now, and any savvy TV watcher can figure out what will happen. The good guys will flip the tables on Negan, putting him in a position where he doesn't hold all the cards for the first time. In a mirror of the season premiere, they'll psychologically and physically torture him, and ultimately kill him. It will be viscerally satisfying.
But I'm here to make the case that "The Walking Dead" should've surprised us with a twist by now. Yes, the killing of Negan has to be viciously commiserate with the deaths of Glenn and Abraham in order to be fulfilling. But it didn't have to be so dragged out. In episode 4, "Service," Negan hands his bat to Rick, and he does the same with Carl in "Sing Me a Song." In the latter case, Carl and Negan are on a platform with none of Negan's men nearby. Earlier in that episode, Carl hesitates and misses a golden opportunity to gun down Negan with a machine gun. I understand that the point of these scenes is to show that Negan has psychologically broken our heroes to the point where they are overthinking the act of taking him out (They're thinking: "If I fail, will I see another of my friends' brains bashed in?").
But I submit that it would be satisfying – and still good storytelling – if our heroes actually had taken those opportunities to kill Negan -- or at least turn the tables somehow, thus changing the trajectory of the arc. (Rosita does try to use her one bullet on Negan in episode 8, "Hearts Still Beating," but right after the commercial break, we learn that she missed. Of course.)
For successful examples of undercutting clichés, "Indiana Jones" and "Buffy" come to my mind. In "Raiders of the Lost Ark," we're poised for a sword fight scene. Amid an action-packed movie, yet another action scene could be tiresome. So Indy just shoots the swordsman. It's funny, and we are spared a clichéd scene. (The joke gets more mileage in "Temple of Doom," when Indy's gun is missing from its holster, and he has to run from the swordsmen.)
In "Buffy" Season 3's "Bad Girls"/"Consequences," Faith tells Giles that Buffy killed the deputy mayor. We're spared the clichéd scene of Buffy making her case to Giles when Giles immediately tells Buffy he knows Faith is lying. And later that season, in "Enemies," the cliché of Angel again turning into Angelus is undercut when it turns out he's faking it in order to trap Faith.
These moments have something in common: We brace ourselves for a familiar TV plotline, and then we are spared from it in a clever twist, and a different (and less inevitable) storyline branches off from there.
"The Walking Dead" could've greatly benefited from such a moment. Season 7 is hard to watch partly because of the utter success with which the writers and Morgan have brought Negan to life. I don't hesitate to rank him as the most genuinely scary TV villain of all time. I am emotionally drained after watching every Negan episode, particularly the extra-long "Sing Me a Song," where he smoothly mixes psychological torture (having Carl remove his head-wrap and sing a song) and physical torture (burning the face of one of the rule-breakers with an iron). I get: He's a monster, and he needs to be taken out. And the common folk are collectively working up the nerve and the strategy for overthrowing him.
It's reminiscent of "Buffy's" seventh and worst season, most of which was spent gearing up for the final fight against the First Evil. While Negan is human, he's metaphorically the purest form of evil; he has no layers or backstory, and there are no signs so far that the writers intend to make him a deeper character -- and I don't necessarily disagree with that choice. (Granted, it would be fun to see how a young Negan's psychopathy manifested itself pre-apocalypse, but "The Walking Dead" tends to not do "Lost"-style flashbacks.)
But there's something to be said about speeding up a narrative rather than wallowing in it. As Buffy said to that same trash-talking First Evil in Season 3's "Amends": "I get it. You're evil. Do we have to chat about it all day?"
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 16 Jan 2017 15:09:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2017/1/16/Negan-the-scariest-TV-villain-of-all-time-has-turned-The-Walking-Dead-into-a-slogThe golden age of TV prequels: ‘Bates Motel,’ ‘Gotham’ and ‘Fear the Walking Dead’http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2016/5/4/The-golden-age-of-TV-prequels-Gotham-Bates-Motel-and-Fear-the-Walking-Dead
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//bates-motel-norman1.jpg">
At first blush, prequels should be a boring form of storytelling, because we already know the end point. Of course, there are many examples that prove out-of-sequence storytelling can work – the "Star Wars" prequels and "Smallville" have plenty of fans, for example. But three current series – A&E's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2188671/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"Bates Motel,"</a> Fox's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3749900/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"Gotham"</a> and AMC's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3743822/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"Fear the Walking Dead"</a> -- have turned the prequel into an art form, garnering extra drama from the fact that the audience knows where the story is going.
[More]
The unspoken undercurrent of "Bates Motel" is that when we get to the narrative of the "Psycho" movie, Norman Bates and his deceased and taxidermied mother are the only "Bates Motel" characters remaining in the narrative. Dylan, Emma and Sheriff Romero – none of whom are in any of the "Psycho" movies -- are far too significant to simply be absent during the time when Norma dies and Norman preserves her corpse and begins managing the motel solo.
That gives extra spice to scenes such as the one in Monday's episode when Emma and Norman agree that nothing will ever come between their friendship. I suspect that the fact that Norman killed Emma's mom might come between their friendship, and it will put further strain on Dylan's awkward position as someone who cares about both his brother and his girlfriend.
Romero, in addition to being Norma's husband and Norman's stepfather (much to Norman's anger), also possesses a lot of casefiles and institutional knowledge about Norman's mental problems from his job as sheriff.
For the "Psycho" story to happen more or less as it does in the 1960 movie (and the 1998 shot-for-shot remake), these three major characters have to be out of the picture. It could mean they move away, as Norman's girlfriend Cody moved to Indiana a couple years ago and Norma's brother Caleb moved to Central America. Dylan and Emma are currently planning to move from White Pine Bay, Ore., to Seattle.
Or it could mean Norman kills them all. Judging by the escalating narrative, I'm betting on the latter.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//gotham-bruce-wayne1.jpg">
"Gotham" operates with less subtlety, but I've still been impressed with the writers' balancing act. Bruce Wayne is morphing into the boy-who-will-be-Batman. He picks up some street smarts from Selina, some fighting skills and tips from Alfred, and most recently he seems intrigued by Azrael's ability to slink away from the authorities by climbing buildings in the smoke-laced Gotham night.
At the same time, we get the origin stories of all the classic villains without Bruce meeting them. To be consistent with Batman lore, he can't meet them until he becomes Batman. However, Detective Gordon can, so we're allowed some juicy Penguin, Riddler and Mr. Freeze tales. Meanwhile, Bruce's on-again-off-again friendship with Selina is being established, and (Poison) Ivy is also a contemporary of theirs.
As viewers, we know the beats of the Batman and Gotham City arc, but we've never before gotten to immerse ourselves in it to the degree "Gotham" allows.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//fear-the-walking-dead-chris.jpg">
"Fear the Walking Dead" is the strangest prequel of this trio, because whereas "Bates Motel" and "Gotham" are structured on the idea of an end point, this show is not. It may not link up with "The Walking Dead" at all; it might merely be a companion piece showing post-apocalyptic character studies on the West Coast to go along with those from the Southeast.
Aside from the fact that they're set in the same narrative universe, there have been no links to "The Walking Dead" so far. If "Fear" doesn't link up, though, that would be a missed opportunity. Popular theories so far are that Madison Clark is the sister of Rick Grimes (they both have Southern accents) or the sister of Andrea (the actresses have similar styles).
Until "Fear's" group heads East or the parent show's group heads West, we're getting ahead of ourselves by making predictions. But I'll throw out one possibility. "The Walking Dead" currently shows a murderous and popular dictator named Negan, raising the question of how someone like that could gain followers. Meanwhile, we're seeing "Fear's" good-hearted but angry young man Chris get comfortable killing walkers (or "infected," as it were) and severely injured people who can't be saved. No doubt, he's working his way up to killing humans. Perhaps he's on a trajectory toward being a Savior in five years.
"Fear the Walking Dead" has more freedom than the other two shows because "The Walking Dead" is still ongoing; it's not set in stone like "Psycho" and the Batman tale are.
On the other hand, "Bates Motel" and "Gotham" – which are arguably "premakes" rather than "prequels" -- could build some freedom into their narratives if they choose to. "Bates Motel," after all, is not linking directly to "Psycho," as the TV show is set during the present day and the movie was set in 1960. "Gotham," likewise, is not linking directly to 1990's "Batman" or 2005's "Batman Begins" or this year's "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice." The general beats will be in place, but there is room for tweaks.
In the case of all three shows, the fact that they are prequels is not in itself enough to make them compelling, but the "How will it link up?" question definitely adds an extra layer of intrigue. (Further adding grist to the argument that this is a golden age for TV prequels is that Disney XD's <a href=" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2930604/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"Star Wars: Rebels"</a> recently wrapped up a Season 2 that was loads better than its first season. "Rebels" has featured a bit of backstory for film characters Tarkin, Darth Vader and Princess Leia, although the series' main characters are not in the films. Because "Star Wars" has always told stories out of sequence, the prequel aspect of "Rebels" seems less remarkable than it does for these other franchises, even though it certainly is a prequel to "Episode IV.")
What are your predictions for how "Bates Motel," "Gotham" and "Fear the Walking Dead" will connect with established lore?
Bates Motel/PsychoTelevisionWalking Dead, TheBatmanWed, 04 May 2016 00:01:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2016/5/4/The-golden-age-of-TV-prequels-Gotham-Bates-Motel-and-Fear-the-Walking-Dead‘The Walking Dead’ goes back to the beginning of civilizationhttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2016/3/21/The-Walking-Dead-goes-back-to-the-beginning-of-civilization
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-denise.jpg">
In my past posts about <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead,"</a> I've analyzed how some communities stand as metaphors for forms of government – Woodbury as a fascist state, Terminus as a communist state, the Hospital as an autocratic state, and so forth. I may have jumped the gun, though, because now I think the show serves as an examination of how any modern civilized, organized society (as we know it) forms from the roots up. If modern civilization in 2016 can be boiled down to humanity's ongoing struggle to find a balance between killing for the sake of security versus not killing because all life has value, "The Walking Dead" is a beautiful, stripped-down metaphor for this struggle.
[More]
Modern society isn't the highest point of civilization that's possible, of course; many sci-fi stories, for example, imagine better futures. But it is the nadir of civilization that has ever existed on Earth to this point. We haven't yet overcome our collective belief in killing for the sake of safety, so as of 2016, the mark of an advanced society is one that farms out its killing power to its proxies in the government. This allows most of us to live in relative safety while pursuing our careers and interests while our country's military and police state kills our perceived enemies. (Of course, it doesn't work so smoothly in practice, but that's another issue.)
On "The Walking Dead," however, there aren't countries, there are just small factions of people, such as the community of Alexandria ("our" group), whose strength is fighting; the city of Hilltop, whose strength is growing food; Negan's mysterious group (for some reason known as the Saviors), which has a mafia-style hold on Hilltop; and Dwight's ragtag nomadic marauders (he's the one who killed Denise in Sunday's episode, "Twice as Far"). While some characters have avoided killing, none of them are far removed from the reality of warfare, like most Americans are in 2016.
The thematic core of Season 6 -- and perhaps the whole series -- is killing and death. At first, even killing walkers was an issue: For example, Morgan is psychologically unable to kill his walker wife in the pilot episode. Now, even the most sheltered Alexandrian can kill a walker or fight in self-defense: Petrified doctor-by-necessity Denise can kill a walker, and cerebral Eugene can attack a human to escape captivity. "The Walking Dead" has moved past walkers and has climbed into the murky trenches of humans killing humans. Robert Kirkman's show explores this on both an individual and a societal level.
Every "Walking Dead" character can be defined by their ability to kill and how they deal with it psychologically. They are all wired differently. Rick shoots first and asks questions later, and he doesn't lose a wink of sleep at night; he has his eye on the big prize of turning Alexandria into a safe, functioning town. Carol has also been a preemptive killer the last couple seasons, but she is now haunted by her behavior and has consequently lost her ability to kill; she splits Alexandria, believing she is endangering people with her inability to kill for them. Morgan has already gone through an arc like Carol's, and he has resolved to never kill unless in clear, one-on-one self-defense. Daryl has generally chosen not to kill unless in cut-and-dried self-defense, but he's starting to rethink that stance after Dwight – whom he had let live in a previous episode – returned and killed Denise in "Twice as Far." Carl killed a boy his age from Woodbury several seasons back, and it hasn't noticeably affected him.
(It's interesting to note that while the downfall of civilized society happened fast – see the prequel, "Fear the Walking Dead" -- the characters in this fictional universe didn't immediately devolve into killing machines. Rather, by killing walkers, they learned how to kill other humans. In that sense, the human race had to return to its most primitive roots before growing again.)
Meanwhile, as Alexandria has become a functional society, it has developed a view that reflects – on a smaller scale – global military conflicts in 2016. The Alexandrians don't simply fortify the walls and trade peacefully – military might in exchange for food -- with Hilltop. Rather, Alexandria has entered into the kind of entangled alliance that Thomas Jefferson warned about and that the modern U.S. military is engaged in. Alexandria needs food; Hilltop needs their mafia-style arrangement with the Saviors ended. Therefore, the Alexandrians raid Negan's fortress (or, at least, one of them). They kill all of the people at that fortress with the idea that peace will now prevail in this geographic region of the post-apocalypse. This is similar to a real-world theory championed by fearmongering politicians: Wipe out the entire population of the Middle East, and then we'll have peace.
The logistical problem with that theory is that it's politically – and perhaps even practically -- impossible to kill that many people without creating a spiral that wipes out modern civilization. The current strategy of killing a bunch of them is also problematic. Although the Bush and Obama administrations have encountered surprisingly little backlash for the staggering amount of Middle Eastern civilians they've killed with drone bombs, that bombing campaign has likewise only exacerbated and prolonged the conflict; some terrorists have been killed, but more enemies have been created.
Alexandria will soon find itself in this same nightmare loop when it is revealed that many more Saviors exist. (This was hinted at in "The Same Boat" when the "last" member of Negan's group proclaims that "We're all Negan" before Rick murders him. Meanwhile, casting of Negan – Jeffrey Dean Morgan – has been openly reported, so we know the Alexandria vs. Savior war is far from over.) From the Saviors' point of view, they held a Hilltopper and the Alexandrians killed a few Saviors in order to rescue that Hilltopper – at which point the two sides were even. But then the Alexandrians went on to kill EVERYONE in the fortress, under the theory of pre-emptive self-defense that is ubiquitous in real-world warfare.
Negan's group is the bad guys from Alexandria's perspective, and vice versa, and both sides have a reasonable case.
"The Walking Dead's" spiral of killing brings us back to the individual side of things. Caught up in this war, people who aren't wired to kill have had to do so – memorably, in "Not Tomorrow Yet," Glenn openly weeps as he kills a Savior in his sleep during the silent raid. Mostly by good fortune, Glenn hadn't had to kill a human up until that point; he is weeping for the loss of part of his humanity, or perhaps for the end of the last vestiges of the (by comparison) peaceful pre-apocalyptic world.
Ironically, Glenn's newfound ability to kill might buy him more time on "The Walking Dead." It's often theorized on "Talking Dead" that characters with the healthiest moral and ethical perspectives tend to be killed off. In "Twice as Far," Denise is killed by Dwight's arrow (intended for Daryl) just as she's winding down a speech to Daryl and Rosita about how they are missing the point of life: It's not about avoiding dying, it's about living and taking risks. Previously, we've seen the deaths of "moral centers" such as Dale, Hershel and Beth – not to mention one-episode-wonder Eastman, who was Morgan's Yoda. The deceased characters often live on in those they leave behind: Dale mentored Glenn, Hershel was the loving father of Maggie and Beth, and Beth's sweetness touched the whole group. Like Noah and Denise, Beth is also a haunting symbol of missed possibilities.
That having been said, those who are better at killing survive longer on "The Walking Dead." In a nutshell, that's why while society becomes more statistically peaceful as time goes by (today's wars and military actions are horrendous, but they feature many fewer deaths than wars of a mere half-century ago), it progresses in fits and starts. Under that theory, Carol and Morgan are extremely vulnerable right now. Morgan might have made a lasting impression on Rick in "Twice as Far" when he completes construction of a jail cell in Alexandria. He built the cell so Rick will have another option the next time he has to stop an enemy. Rick literally scoffs at the notion, but the idea of that jail cell – and of the way things used to be, before the apocalypse -- is firmly planted in his mind now. As such, Morgan's belief might outlive him: "Where there's life, there's possibility."
And in the real world, where that belief is expressed, no matter how timidly and no matter how much it is drowned out by fearmongers, civilization inches forward.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 21 Mar 2016 15:46:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2016/3/21/The-Walking-Dead-goes-back-to-the-beginning-of-civilization‘The Walking Dead’ teaches us about the value of lifehttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/11/3/The-Walking-Dead-teaches-us-about-the-value-of-life
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-morgan.jpg">
Sunday's episode of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> featured cinematographically beautiful scenes of Morgan and his mentor, Eastman, practicing the martial art of aikido, along with powerfully acted moments of Morgan begging Eastman to kill him. But the most memorable part of the episode is Eastman's monologues, which -- taken together -- tell the story of how he learned to value all life.
[More]
Usually, the rule of storytelling is "show, don't tell." But there are exceptions, such as Robert Shaw's USS Indianapolis speech in "Jaws" ... and now John Carroll Lynch's stories in the 90-minute "Here's Not Here." Eastman, a prison psychologist before the apocalypse, was skilled at reading people's true natures. So while an inmate named Crighton Dallas Wilton used his charm to fool officials into giving him perks such as time on a roadside work crew, Eastman saw Wilton was truly evil and denied him parole. Wilton escaped and killed Eastman's wife, son and daughter. Then Eastman picked up Wilton – the only truly evil person among the 825 prisoners he interviewed in his career -- from the prison road crew, put him in a cage in his cabin and watched him starve to death over the course of 44 days.
With that, Eastman had "come to value all life."
Subtextually, "Here's Not Here" – which plays like a two-lead indie film more so than a traditional TV episode – is a fascinating commentary on the nature of violence in humans. We tend to look at the problems of the world and assume people are inherently violent. Even if we personally wouldn't commit violent crimes or join the military and fight overseas, we think we might be capable of doing what the otherwise peaceful Eastman did to Wilton. As guest Paul Bettany said on a recent "Talking Dead," when a parent lays eyes on their child for the first time, they immediately realize they are capable of homicide should anyone hurt their child.
Eastman makes a good point, though: If humans were inherently violent, there wouldn't have been scores of American soldiers coming back from the Middle East with PTSD before the zombie apocalypse. Humans do not have claws or armored shells. What soldiers are asked to do is not natural.
Furthermore, "Here's Not Here," through Eastman's harrowing story, examines the difference between violence by proxy and close-up violence. We rarely note the difference between the two, but it's incredibly significant. Indeed, humans' ability to rationalize violence through the wrongful assumption that we are inherently violent comes about largely because most of the violence in the world is done by proxy.
For example, the U.S. government has killed hundreds of innocent people as part of its Middle East drone program. But what individual is responsible for those deaths? The commander in chief? The remote operator who presses the button? The military person who calls for the strike? The American taxpayers who successfully shamed the administration away from Syria in 2012 before giving up three years later? I've heard various arguments that no one is directly responsible. And yet the innocent people are still dead, and still more will die.
Through Eastman's story, "The Walking Dead" makes a strong case that if an individual had killed the first of those innocent folks in Pakistan or Yemen or Afghanistan with his bare hands, rather than by using middlemen, perhaps the hundreds of additional deaths wouldn't have followed.
My Middle East drone bombing example deals with innocent people. But Eastman actually learns to value all life by watching a demonstrably evil person die by his hand, suggesting that such an epiphany does not depend on the deceased being a good person – it's the act of taking a life, period, that is drives home the lesson.
A written page from Eastman's pamphlet on aikido (an even more extreme breaking of the "show, don't tell" rule) explains that while many philosophies claim that all life is sacred, they are quick to make exceptions to the rule. This particular martial art – centered on a series of defensive and redirective forms with a long staff – practices what it preaches. (Subconsciously, I wonder if Donatello's use of a bo staff – rather than the more inherently violent weapons of his brothers – is part of why he's my favorite Ninja Turtle.)
But as much as I might want to hold up "Here's Not Here" as evidence that pacifism (or even violence strictly for the sake of defense) isn't as simplistic as is commonly assumed, "The Walking Dead" will quite possibly undercut this notion as Season 6 goes forward. As we learned at episode's end, Morgan has an unwilling disciple of his own tied up in his Alexandria house: a member of the Wolves, a cult that believes it is now the natural state of things to kill and take, rather than to shake hands and barter. This Wolf promises to kill Morgan when he gets free – just as Morgan once promised the same to Eastman – and the look in his eyes suggests he's one of those rare Crighton types who actually is evil, and will make good on his promise.
Does that undercut aikido, though? Not necessarily, as we come back to the wider theme that has emerged in recent seasons of "The Walking Dead": What's more important – surviving at any cost, or having something worth living for? Rick represents the former viewpoint, most starkly in the Season 5 finale when he guns down Pete (who had just killed someone with a sword) rather than secure him and go through a judicial process in Alexandria. He had killed many people before that, too. Morgan represents the latter viewpoint. So did Eastman, who was always more vulnerable to Morgan's potential violence than even Morgan knew (the cage was unlocked, it turns out) – except that Eastman had looked into Morgan's eyes and seen that he was not evil.
Rick is more likely to survive; in fact, he might be the last human left on the planet – surrounded by hordes of encroaching walkers -- when "The Walking Dead's" credits roll for the last time.
Morgan will probably bite it at the hands of his lone Wolf project before the season is over. However, he is more likely than Rick to live while he's alive.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheTue, 03 Nov 2015 00:51:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/11/3/The-Walking-Dead-teaches-us-about-the-value-of-life‘Fear the Walking Dead,’ ‘Strain’ villains want power for power’s sakehttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/9/21/Fear-the-Walking-Dead-Strain-villains-want-power-for-powers-sake
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//fear-the-walking-dead-military.jpg">
A couple seasons ago on "The Walking Dead," Rick and the gang agreed to march toward Washington, D.C., on Eugene's promise that there was a governmental structure in place working against the zombie plague. While the characters never spoke in-depth about the question of whether the government – which demonstrably failed to stop the zombie plague -- should be trusted, I felt strongly that once the gang got to D.C., they would not find a safe government-run utopia.
[More]
The twist came earlier than I expected when it turned out Eugene was making the whole thing up for the sake of having a purpose in life, and the government's actual role in the post-apocalyptic world, if any, has remained a mystery through five seasons. But now the spinoff/prequel <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3743822/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"Fear the Walking Dead"</a> is shedding some light. In the fourth episode, the military men haul off Griselda, with her damaged foot, and Nick, with his drug addiction, in decidedly violent and underhanded fashion. They break their promise that Griselda's husband, Daniel, can come along for the surgery. And in the case of Nick, he needed medication, not a hospital trip at gunpoint.
So what is the government's nefarious goal?, a viewer is tempted to ask. Did something go wrong with secret medical experiments? Has the United States been taken over by madmen who want to see walkers rule the world? The answer, I think, is simpler: The soldiers and their unseen bosses on "Fear the Walking Dead" are exercising power for power's sake (and many of the lower-ranking soldiers are kept in line due to the allure and continually stressed importance of following orders). Lieutenant Moyers, casually using a recently ruined neighborhood as a golf driving range, says it's not his job to tell frightened wives where their husbands have been hauled off to – that's a job for social workers. As he tells this to Travis, it's clear from the look in Moyers' eyes that he enjoys power, and no explanation is needed beyond that.
I saw a similar look from a young man who visited the Libertarian Party booth I was manning at the Missouri State Fair a few years ago. We gave visitors the World's Smallest Political Quiz, which plots people's political views on a diamond-shaped graph. The goal is to demonstrate that most people lean toward liberty – the top of the diamond -- in their hearts and minds. But there were some exceptions; this young man plotted firmly on the bottom of the diamond, in the totalitarian grid. I was momentarily surprised, but one look in his eyes was explanation enough: This man believed in power and law and order and might makes right -- and that was both the start and the end of the debate.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//strain-nazi.jpg">
When debating the dangers of giving special powers to a special group, the obvious example is the rise of the Nazis, but that's also a bad arguing tactic due to Godwin's Law – invoking the Nazis ends the argument at a stalemate because it's the most extreme example. Still, TV dramas can get away with Nazi stories (indeed, they've long made ideal, controversy-free villains), and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2654620/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"The Strain"</a> powerfully (no pun intended) tells of Thomas Eichorst's rise from bad salesman to strutting SS man in Sunday's episode. We see Eichorst marching through town in crisp regalia, being saluted by his uneasy former boss; not far away, a family of lynched Jews hangs from tree limbs in broad daylight.
While "The Strain" obviously skipped over some transitional scenes for the sake of a concise backstory, that made the message stronger in a way. As Daniel – sort of a practical Yoda figure -- says on "Fear the Walking Dead," "When it happens, it happens fast." Whether he's referring to a full-on police state or an apocalypse, it holds true either way.
Using Nazis as villains is nothing new, but at no point did the writers hedge their bets by showing how extreme Nazis are compared to other political movements: Eichorst's story is simply about a man who desires power and finds it through government. But "Fear the Walking Dead" is more remarkable, because it is portraying U.S. police officers and American soldiers as villains (hapless in the former case, power-hungry in the latter case) – and just as invoking Nazis usually stalemates an argument, so does criticizing police or the U.S. military. Yet "Fear the Walking Dead" just went there.
Perhaps even more powerfully than the cold hard facts about the militarization of police in recent years (see Eric Garner, Kelly Thomas, Walter Scott, Baby Bou Bou, highway patrol checkpoints, etc.) is the fact that Hollywood is now addressing this national problem through its fiction – and that it happens to be end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it fiction is not something to be brushed off, either. Hollywood is one of the most casually and consistently statist enclaves in America, and while it's true that stories with all political viewpoints come out of Tinseltown (that's just good business sense), the bluntness of these anti-institution stories on two fairly mainstream shows is remarkable.
It should also be noted that humans value life in 2015 more than at any time in history – that's why, even though we've allowed the police state to emerge, people of all political beliefs are also concerned by that fact. Nazis could hang Jews in the open without an immediate citizens' revolt in the 1930s, but such a brazen display would not happen today, at least not in the Western world. But the allure of power (see Donald Trump, who has money and fame and now seeks to complete the trifecta) and the desire to be ruled (see passionate supporters of Trump and other mainstream candidates) are also common human traits, as they always have been.
On "Fear the Walking Dead" and "The Strain," the writers have not invoked conspiracies or medical experiments gone awry, as much as we might suspect those explanations are lurking around the corner. The villains want power because they want power. That's a powerful message, especially coming from Hollywood.
Strain, TheTelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 21 Sep 2015 13:37:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/9/21/Fear-the-Walking-Dead-Strain-villains-want-power-for-powers-sakeFirst episode impressions: ‘Fear the Walking Dead’http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/8/25/First-episode-impressions-Fear-the-Walking-Dead
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//fear-the-walking--dead-cast.jpg">
For five seasons, "The Walking Dead" has revealed the flaws of societal structure through a world struggling to rebuild that structure. But we never saw the actual process of the stripping away of society. In the pilot episode, Rick wakes up from his coma post-apocalypse, and other characters haven't talked about the initial outbreak much, nor have we seen many flashbacks. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3743822/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt" target="_blank">"Fear the Walking Dead"</a> (9 p.m. Eastern Sundays on AMC) is here to rectify that.
[More]
This sort-of prequel, which launched a six-week first season on Sunday that will lead up to the Season 6 premiere of "The Walking Dead" in October, chronicles the beginning of the zombie apocalypse in 2010 Los Angeles. Even more explicitly than "Walking Dead," "Fear" details the breakdown of societal structure. As one character puts it in a voiceover from the preview: "When civilization ends, it ends fast."
A pimply high schooler named Tobias, who brings a knife to school for protection, can see it coming: "They don't know if it's a virus or a microbe, but it's spreading. People are killing." His teacher, Madison Clark (Kim Dickens), is skeptical: "If there's a problem, we're gonna know about it. The authorities will tell us." Tobias reflects the position of viewers who are armed with six seasons of "Walking Dead" knowledge and have also followed real-world news for the past decade, with his sarcastic "Yeah, sure. You're right, Miss C."
Madison's trust in the authorities to handle an outbreak doesn't last through the end of the 90-minute premiere, as everyone sees leaked video of police gunning down what we viewers know is a walker (it'll be interesting to see if and when the term "walker" starts being used on "Fear").
Even though the plot is a standard outbreak drama, and utterly predictable considering we know it leads into the world of "The Walking Dead," I found this episode compelling. The production values we've come to expect from the original series are in place, with zombie designer Greg Nicotero reverting to the not-so-desiccated early apocalypse walkers. The dark score by Paul Haslinger gives the proceedings a nice sense of inevitability to contrast with the more mysterious vibe favored by Bear McCreary on the parent show. And it's fascinating to see a "normal" L.A. with the occasional potential walker (or possibly just a homeless person with a limp) peppered into the landscape.
Whereas "Walking Dead" is about makeshift family, "Fear" starts off with an actual, albeit somewhat dysfunctional, family that will either be further fractured or become closer as the series unfolds. Frank Dillane gives a boffo performance as Madison's son Nick, who is alternately pathetic – he is a druggie who is unnecessarily ruining his life -- and totally worth rooting for – we know he saw a zombie in the opening sequence, but everyone thinks he hallucinated it.
Other characters include Nick's sister Alicia (Alycia Debnam-Carey), whose boyfriend goes missing; Travis (Cliff Curtis), Madison's hubby and the teens' stepdad-to-be; and Travis' first family, including his ex-wife and disgruntled son, who we'll probably get to know more in future episodes.
"Walking Dead" and "Fear" creator Robert Kirkman and his team no doubt set this spinoff on the West Coast to make it clear that these characters will not meet up with those of the original series, set in the Southeast. Everything we see in "Fear" could've just as easily happened in Atlanta, but that would've led us to expect cameos from Rick and company. I'm happy with the choice, as it's important that the world of "The Walking Dead" be expanded, and crossovers (or the expectation thereof) would've shrunk the world.
Nonetheless, "Fear" could still theoretically offer clues that inform the original show, where even after five seasons our heroes don't know what – if any – federal governmental structure remains. While the tempting answer is "none," we have been privy to some intriguing radio signals. While I expect "Fear's" main aim is to show that the authorities are not equipped to handle the zombie outbreak, it might also delve into something more sinister, such as intentional misinformation or outright abandonment of the populace (themes that "The Strain" is currently exploring).
Even if there are no overt tie-ins, it's a blast to see the early days of people adjusting to the changing world, and the fact that we already know what happens does not hamper "Fear" in the least. More than just a light companion piece, "Fear the Walking Dead" has the potential to be just as good as "The Walking Dead."
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheTue, 25 Aug 2015 14:19:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/8/25/First-episode-impressions-Fear-the-Walking-DeadFor current popular TV shows, what’s the end game?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/4/28/For-current-popular-TV-shows-whats-the-end-game
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//gotham-gordon-bruce.jpg">
By their very nature, some shows have end games and some don't. A show about families and relationships, like "Parenthood," simply looks for a grace note (and it found a good one in its series finale in January); it's not as if it can end with everyone's life in a state of perpetual perfection. At the other end of the spectrum, a murder mystery like last fall's "Gracepoint" has a strictly defined finish line: "Who killed Danny Solano?"
[More]
Some shows don't get end games because they are canceled, in which case the best we can hope for is a grace note, like the famous final scene of "Angel" that fades to black right before a big fight. Some popular shows are granted a hyped-up finale but fail to stick the landing: "Dawson's Creek" very clearly should have featured soul mates Dawson and Joey walking hand-in-hand into the sunset, but Kevin Williamson overthought it and went for a more realistic but less satisfying ending of Pacey and Joey being a couple.
A show shouldn't only be defined by how it ends. A journey can be enjoyable even without a satisfying conclusion; for example, because it was canceled, "American Dreams" ended on an unsatisfying cliffhanger of Meg running away from home, but that doesn't mean I regret watching it. Still, "What's the end game?" is a question that hangs over every popular show, and a sense that the writers know where the story is going is important to many viewers.
Here's a look at six current series and some guesses what their end games might be:
<a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/the-walking-dead/" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> – Radio transmissions have told us there is some sort of organized societal structure out there. But mainly, the show is about Rick's group surviving day to day, and trying to establish a stable community -- and failing, and then trying again. The end game could be that a cure to the zombie plague is discovered and smoothly administered, but that seems too Pollyanna-ish for this grim series about how survival situations change people for better or worse. I think a happy ending means Rick's group settles into a safe community with zombie-proof walls and begins to rediscover normalcy. Just setting up a nice clean lab where a scientist can study walker corpses would be satisfying.
<a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/the-last-man-on-earth/" target="_blank">"The Last Man on Earth"</a> – This is a tricky one, because so far it's a one-joke show about the increasingly extreme bad breaks suffered by Will Forte's character as he meets more and more virus survivors in Tucson. In fact, he even had to change his name to Tandy when another Phil Miller came to town. If the show was about Tandy learning to roll with the punches, it would cease to be a comedy, or it would need to become a new type of comedy. I suspect "LMOE" will continue on its current path. The end game could be a statement about how society has grown back into the exact same mess it was before the virus, with Tandy continuing to be the Everyman helpless to stop it.
<a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/gotham/" target="_blank">"Gotham"</a> (pictured above) – This "Batman" prequel/reboot needs to be on the air for about a decade to meet up with the traditional age where Bruce Wayne – currently in his early teens -- becomes Batman, and that's a lot to ask of Fox, which hasn't let a genre show run that long, well, ever. (The closest is "The X-Files," at nine seasons.) Detective Jim Gordon becoming the police commissioner should probably be a long process, too, considering that he's currently 30-something and Commissioner Gordon has always been portrayed as much older. So most likely "Gotham" will have to settle for a grace-note ending after five seasons or so. But if the show were to get a full run, the end game should be Gordon becoming commissioner and Bruce becoming Batman, giving the viewer a strong sense that this united front will now make serious progress in cleaning up Gotham. If by some chance "Gotham" is still going strong after that, it could perhaps delve into actual Batman stories with some later-arriving rogues such as Mr. Freeze, if the rogues gallery hasn't been tapped out by that point.
<a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/bates-motel/" target="_blank">"Bates Motel"</a> – This "Psycho" prequel/reboot isn't likely to link up with the iconic events of the Hitchcock movie, simply because Norman is currently a high school senior and it would have to be on the air for another 15 or 20 years to do so. However, I think "Bates Motel" could end a few years down the road with Norman – firmly entrenched in his schizophrenic state -- killing his mother, preserving her corpse with his taxidermy skills, and then going about his business running the motel. In the meantime, supporting players like Dylan, Emma, Caleb and the sheriff would have to be removed from the picture to explain how Norman's crime could go unnoticed for another decade or so before the "Psycho" story. Another possibility is that "Bates Motel" could move the events of Hitchcock's classic further up on the timeline; after all, this is a prequel only in a psychological sense, not in a strict narrative sense, as it is set in a different time and place than the films.
<a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/the-returned/" target="_blank">"The Returned"</a> – This one is simple: It has to answer how and why some people have returned from the dead in a small Washington town. The "how" can be supernatural or spiritual or mystical, but the "why" needs to be rooted in something tangible, such as a specific type of unfinished business that each of "the returned" has.
<a href="http://www.tv.com/shows/izombie/" target="_blank">"iZombie"</a> – Liv is adjusting to the new normal of being a zombie (which in this mythology means she can live normally as long as she eats brains from the morgue regularly). Some other zombies have neutrally integrated into society by hiding their secret, like the police chief. But still others are villains who murder people for their brains and sell those brains at a high cost to other closeted zombies. And even desecrating the brains of a dead person, as Liv does out of necessity, would be controversial if the public knew about it. Since "iZombie" isn't as grim as "The Walking Dead," I think a happy ending of Liv getting cured and returning to fully human life is a possibility, particularly since the search for a cure is part of the mission of Liv's boss, Dr. Ravi. More likely, though, "iZombie" will end with a grace note of Liv being OK with being a zombie, which stands as a metaphor for any troubling adjustment in life.
What are your predictions of the end games for current popular shows? Will Bruce become Batman? Will Norman go full-on psycho? Will the plagues of "The Walking Dead" or "iZombie" get a cure? Share your thoughts below.
Bates Motel/PsychoTelevisionWalking Dead, TheBatmanTue, 28 Apr 2015 16:00:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/4/28/For-current-popular-TV-shows-whats-the-end-gameHave the communists won on ‘The Walking Dead?’ Not likelyhttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/3/3/Have-the-communists-won-on-The-Walking-Dead-Not-likely
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-deanna.jpg">
In Sunday's episode of <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC), Alexandria leader Deanna jokes to Rick "I guess the communists won." She offers Rick and Michonne the jobs of constables, which they accept, and says she's in the process of coming up with the ideal jobs for the rest of Rick's group. Upcoming episodes will tell us whether the show is attempting to make a serious statement about communism or if Deanna was merely throwing out a one-liner. But before we move forward, we should ask if Alexandria is a true representation of communism.
[More]
Often times, communist states and communes are lumped into the broad category of communism, but there is a significant difference between the two. In communist states, a person is born into the system (or the system grows around them, encompassing them) and emigrating from the society is illegal (except that you are allowed to leave after retirement age in some countries). In a commune, a person voluntarily joins and is free to leave at any time.
Both systems adhere to Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In a commune, this works because everyone has agreed to this principle, and most people who join communes tend to be generous, communal people. In a communist state, it does not work because most people don't like getting a raw deal: Since they are stuck in the system and not allowed to be an entrepreneur or innovator, they'll try to make the best of a bad situation and position themselves more on the taker side than the giver side. Eventually, a society with more takers than givers collapses.
Alexandria is an intriguing mix of commune and communist state. Everyone is free to leave (like in a commune), but there's a zombie plague outside the walls, so the act of leaving the society might as well be illegal (like in a communist state). It has centralized planning in that Deanna assigns the jobs, but she does ask people if they want the job first – so that leans more toward a commune than a communist state. And there is no army to enforce any central planning that Deanna might want to do. While Alexandria can't be a robust free-market economy since it doesn't have any trading partners, one imagines that a barter economy could spring up within the town itself, like in the early days of capitalism.
Aaron recruits Rick's group to Alexandria (like in a commune), believing that human beings are the best resource in a zombie apocalypse. But once they are on the safe side of the walls at the start of Sunday's episode, "Remember," Rick's group is asked to turn in their weapons – this is the strongest argument that Alexandria is more of a communist state than a peaceful commune. Because they are hungry, dirty and tired, they oblige (except Daryl, who keeps his crossbow). It would've been interesting to see what would've happened had they declined to turn in their guns. Most likely they would've been asked to leave, but we'll never know.
Someone with a Pollyanna view of the world might trust Deanna when she says the guns are still theirs and they can be "checked out" any time they venture outside the walls. But that ignores the elephant in the room: The fact that Alexandria (like communist states, but unlike communes) has a no-weapons policy in the first place. In a zombie apocalypse, the idea of everyone packing heat should be such a common sight that it should go unmentioned. Even in the real pre-zombie world, many governments allow their citizenry the right to self-defense, at least to some degree, despite the tendency of most humans to be squeamish around weapons.
And on the chance that walkers do break through the walls, Deanna should want all her citizens to be armed and ready. (By the way, I think there's an excellent chance walkers – or even more likely, an invading group -- could break through those walls, since the support beams are on the outside. Destroy one of those beams, and a section of wall becomes a nice, wide doorway.)
As to whether Deanna's exiling of three citizens is emblematic of a commune or a communist state: We don't have enough information yet. We just know they were exiled because they "didn't work out." If the trio committed violence against another citizen, that would be justified grounds for exile in any political system. If they started a vegetable garden and demanded trade for their products rather than giving them to the communal pot, that would be immoral grounds for exile, and representative of a communist state. (Such a situation wouldn't come up in a modern commune, because the vegetable entrepreneurs could peacefully part ways with the commune and sell their products at a farmer's market. That's not an option in a zombie apocalypse, though.)
Alexandria is far from the first exploration of communities and politics on "The Walking Dead." Terminus, which also took the weapons from its new "citizens," was a blunt exploration of givers and takers: The newcomers would give their lives so the Termites could take their meat for sustenance. The hospital arc also touched on this issue, as Dawn constantly impressed upon Beth that she "owed them" for saving her life. That arc delved into the morality of indentured servitude under an elite political class. Beth would be allowed to leave once she settled her (rather arbitrary) debt – not exactly communism, but a close cousin.
The Alexandria arc might be a more nuanced take on the themes of Terminus and the hospital. Or it could be a set-up for a shocking flipping of the script, where Rick's group becomes the aggressors and the Alexandrians are the victims.
Because we've been following Rick's group throughout "The Walking Dead," we see this as a case of Rick's group joining the Alexandria group. But in many ways, the citizens of Alexandria are joining Rick's group: Deanna asks Rick and Michonne to be constables, thus allowing them to be the only ones with weapons, and thus, the leaders. And they'll be part of the elite political class with Deanna, who has earned her position with charisma and maintained it thanks to her knack for reading people and forging the right relationships.
Certainly, weapons or no weapons, Rick's group is strong whereas the Alexandrians are weak. This is demonstrated by the fact that even the lead walker hunter, Deanna's son Aidan, is less skilled at killing walkers than just about anyone on Rick's team save for Eugene and Judith.
It's plausible that the Alexandrians – or at least Deanna and the majority of the citizens -- truly want a peaceful communal existence, and Rick will be the one to muck it up. As he notes at episode's end, if things go sour, "We'll just take this place."
Another intriguing element to consider is Carol's strategy of playing possum in the interview with Deanna, portraying herself as a harmless "den mother." If the Alexandrians were to successfully murder Rick, Daryl, Michonne and Glen in their sleep (as unlikely as that seems), Carol could be the wild card that turns things back in our group's favor. (On the other hand, Aaron was watching Rick's group for some time, so one wonders if Carol is fooling him.)
And one more element to consider is the elderly couple who is smitten with Judith, the first baby in Alexandria. In a free society of plenty, we take care of takers, either because they used to be givers (the elderly), because they will be future givers (children) or because they can't help their position (people of certain handicaps or illnesses). If Alexandria's supplies of food and other goods decrease, it will be interesting to see how the weaker members of the society are treated. In communist states, retirees are allowed to depart because they are no longer givers.
The big question at that point might be whether Deanna or Rick takes the position of power, and who lines up behind each of them.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheTue, 03 Mar 2015 00:03:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2015/3/3/Have-the-communists-won-on-The-Walking-Dead-Not-likelyIs ‘The Walking Dead’ embarking on a ‘Dark Rick’ arc?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/12/1/Is-The-Walking-Dead-embarking-on-a-Dark-Rick-arc
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//rick-grimes copy.jpg">
Everyone is (rightly) reacting to the shocking end of Sunday's mid-season finale of <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead,"</a> but the biggest moment in terms of reverberations for future stories might've happened before the opening credits. Bob No. 2 is running back to the hospital and doesn't stop when Rick orders it from the police car's loudspeaker. Rick rams Bob No. 2 with the car, then executes him in the street, following it up with an Eighties movie-style quip of "Shut up." It's a line that would make "Escape from L.A.'s" Snake Plissken proud -- "Nobody draw until this hits the ground." (He shoots everyone.) "Draw."
[More]
Granted, we've seen hints of "Dark Rick" on the rise this season. He mows down some Termites from behind with a machine gun. After turning the tables on Gareth, he slaughters the cannibal cult leader in the church. But those were cases where the Termites had it coming – for God's sake, they intended to kill and eat Rick and his friends, and indeed did cut off Bob No. 1's leg and eat it. Last season, Rick ripped a guy's throat out with his teeth. That guy also had it coming, as he had threatened Carl, Daryl and Michonne.
But Bob No. 2's only crime was escaping from Rick's group. Aside from knocking out Sasha (and note that he probably could've done worse), Bob No. 2 didn't show much ill will toward Rick's group. He certainly didn't have it coming the way the Termites did. That's why I think this killing – and Rick's lack of remorse over it – might lead to a slow-boiling "Dark Rick" arc.
Of course, Beth's death will have repercussions, too. Beth's older sister, Maggie, still has Glenn to latch onto, but I wouldn't be surprised if Glenn is one of the next characters to die. It'd be interesting to see how Maggie would react to losing her dad, her sister and her husband within the span of a little more than a year.
I don't know exactly how it will play out (that's the joy of "The Walking Dead," of course), but I have a feeling that the next major villain will come from within the group rather than from without. The show teased this concept a few seasons ago with Shane, but didn't totally embrace it.
The mid-season finale also affirmed that "Walking Dead" is, at its heart, a character drama. While I sometimes wonder what the show's end game is (in the sense of "Lost's" survivors wanting to get off the island), I don't think an end game is the point of the show. Quite possibly, the characters aren't really working toward an end game, either. Eugene's revelation that he was lying about a potential cure in Washington, D.C., didn't strike me as surprising; I suspected he was fibbing all along.
Rick and his group were told by a CDC agent in Season 1 that there is no cure for the zombie plague, yet they didn't argue much in the face of Eugene's claim and Abraham's determination to get to D.C. Part of this is because the CDC episodes didn't entirely eliminate hope of cure, but part of it is because hope is important even in a hopeless situation – they weren't going to begrudge Abraham that. (Of course, Abraham doesn't react well to losing the hopes he had pinned on Eugene, but now he's working toward finding other reasons to keep on living.)
Ultimately, "The Walking Dead" has more in common with "Gilmore Girls" or "Parenthood" than "Lost" or a murder mystery like "The Killing" or even something with a tenuous sense of a goal, like "Angel" (where Angel's vague end goal was to become human via the Shanshu Prophecy). While the postapocalyptic setting is different from a traditional family-based character drama, like those shows there is no end goal on "The Walking Dead." It's a show about living one's life and forging relationships with other people.
The post-apocalyptic element's biggest contribution – aside from the fact that zombies are cool – is that the life-or-death situations strip people down to their basic core. To cite one example, Sunday's "Talking Dead" guest Keegan-Michael Key smartly noted that Daryl is the one to execute Dawn for killing Beth because Daryl has a deep-seated sense of justice. He doesn't pontificate about post-apocalyptic morality all day as other characters (and bloggers) are wont to, but in that situation, he speaks with his weapon.
Interestingly, like most of Rick's aforementioned victims (but not Bob No. 2), Dawn had it coming. Not strictly because her quick trigger-finger offed Beth, but rather because of her arrogant actions that led to that moment. Dawn couldn't leave the peaceful exchange of prisoners well enough alone; she demanded Noah return to the hospital group.
(On a side note, I'm peeved at Noah for giving in to Dawn's demand. It would've been immensely satisfying if Noah refused to comply and then Dawn found herself on the wrong side of everyone's weapons, including those of her own group-mates. Also, I'm irked at Beth for stabbing Dawn with that scissors, arguably a suicidal move against someone like Dawn.)
Dawn's belief that she could never compromise lest she lose some of her power ultimately resulted in Beth's death, and her own. She had it coming, and Daryl saw that. Even if he hadn't instinctively gunned her down, I suspect Daryl would've been OK with executing Dawn after a more formal judicial review.
Rick would've demanded Dawn's scalp, too, but not purely for the sake of justice. Rick is moving into a realm of simply not taking people's crap anymore, whether they are truly bad or merely annoying. Bring on the moral gray areas – and Dark Rick.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 01 Dec 2014 18:04:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/12/1/Is-The-Walking-Dead-embarking-on-a-Dark-Rick-arc‘Walking Dead’s’ ‘Slabtown’ delivers perfect treatise on evils of taxationhttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/11/3/Walking-Deads-Slabtown-delivers-perfect-treatise-on-evils-of-taxation
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-beth.jpg">
<a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC) rarely gets mentioned when lists of "most libertarian TV shows" are compiled, but that might change when the series ends and we see the full picture. Season 5 in particular seems to be embarking on multi-episode vignettes about various forms of government that could arise in makeshift towns in a zombie apocalypse, and their relative merits or lack thereof.
[More]
The first "town," covering three episodes, was the cannibal colony Terminus, where new arrivals were given a choice between being the butcher or the cattle. Terminus Mary argued that because evil was done to them before they rebelled and took control of Terminus, that justifies them doing the same thing to future arrivals.
The second "town," which we were introduced to in Sunday's episode, is the hospital colony Slabtown. All Beth knows is that she was attacked by a walker, everything went black and she woke up in an Atlanta hospital. A woman in a police uniform with all its accoutrements, Dawn, tells Beth that because they saved her (using resources such as gasoline for the car and hospital supplies to nurse her back to health), Beth owes them, and must work at the hospital to pay off her debt. Her second-in-command, Gorman, isn't merely an enforcer of the pact, he's also a classic abuser of power, as he basically plans to rape Beth the first time he lays eyes on her. (With the arrival of Carol, who would never require rescuing, at episode's end, we can strongly suspect that the Slabtowners had abducted Beth rather than rescued her.)
The moral lessons of the Terminus arc were not ambiguous: If A does evil to B, that doesn't justify B doing evil to C. The moral lesson of Slabtown is that taxation of one's existence is wrong. I think it's equally unambiguous, but a Google search of "Walking Dead," "Slabtown" and "taxation" comes up with nothing, so maybe it's not so obvious, or maybe it's so obvious that it's not worth mentioning. Certainly, taxation – unlike cannibalism – draws loud voices on both sides of the debate, but I think the writers of "Slabtown" were presenting an anti-taxation message.
In America (and many other countries), you are taxed because you exist (income tax, property tax). Because the government can acquire your wealth without taxes – it can shift money's value and who possesses it via the Fed, subsidies, regulations, mandatory purchases and price controls – one wonders why taxes in the traditional sense still exist, but that's another topic. Also another topic is the debate over whether you are getting fair value for your taxes, thus making it a moral exchange (in addition to taxation being the ideal way to run a civilized society due to the efficiency of a society-wide pact – as pro-taxers would argue). My view is that no, you are most certainly not getting fair value (particularly from federal taxes), and any agreement enforced by threat of imprisonment is immoral.
With these various existence taxes, you didn't voluntarily agree to any of it, but if you don't pay it, you will be imprisoned by your rulers. Beth tries to escape at episode's end, but is recaptured by Slabtown's uniformed rulers. Noah escapes through a hole in the fence – which keeps the zombies out and the freedom in, as the Slabtown rulers might spin it.
Despite the fact that we liked to call it a "Ricktatorship" in past seasons, membership in Rick's group is voluntary. Even at the height of Rick's bad behavior, he wasn't going to kill people who wanted to leave. At first glance, Woodbury was also a voluntary society, but the Governor's pre-emptive strikes against anyone he considered a threat ultimately showed it to be a mini-imperialist state with an ignorant populace.
By waking up (metaphorically "being born") in Slabtown, Beth is alive but also a slave. By being born in America, you are alive but also must do what those in power tell you lest you be imprisoned or legally killed. The laws you must obey extend beyond doing harm to others – for which your imprisonment or killing by the majority could be justified -- and into areas such as smoking marijuana in your own home. You can't leave, except to agree that this huge chunk of the Earth's land will forever be off-limits to you, and even then you have to pay an exit tax. Clearly, our chains are much longer than those of traditional slaves, but just as clearly, we have not broken them.
Dawn begins to explain that Beth has to eat the food Slabtown provides in order to have the strength to work and pay off her debt of having eaten the food ... and then kind of trails off as she realizes the endless loop she is describing. The lesson is that 1) Beth will never pay off the debt, because it's impossible, and 2) she is being ruled by those in uniform in Slabtown -- she is not free to leave.
"Slabtown" – the episode, not the town -- contends that freedom and prosperity for all can only come from voluntary interaction and negotiation. If Slabtown operated under the principles of Rick's group, Beth likely would have stayed and contributed. Of course, some of the people saved by Slabtown (if they were truly saving people, and not kidnapping them) would have taken the free medical care and split, thus leaving the Slabtown citizens with fewer resources and nothing to show for it other than the knowledge that they did the right thing. But most would not behave this way, because 1) most people are inherently good, and 2) it's better to live among a free, cooperative people than to take one's chances with the walkers. Indeed, Rick's tight-knit group is an example of this.
"Slabtown" unambiguously shows that rule by force rather than voluntarism is immoral, and I suspect this is no accident on the part of the writers. I think the next step in the Slabtown arc will be to show that rule by force is ultimately unsustainable. Beth has already peppered a few doubts into Dawn's psyche about the morality of her governance. And if Gorman is the only one benefitting from the current set-up, and a healthy Carol is lined up on the other side ... well, let's just say Gorman is going to pay what he owes.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 03 Nov 2014 10:49:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/11/3/Walking-Deads-Slabtown-delivers-perfect-treatise-on-evils-of-taxationCan we all agree that locking people in train cars and killing and eating them is wrong?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/10/15/Can-we-all-agree-that-locking-people-in-train-cars-and-killing-and-eating-them-is-wrong
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-gareth.jpg">
Sunday's episode of "Talking Dead," which followed the fifth-season premiere of <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC), asked viewers if they thought Rick's gang was justified in mowing down everyone in Terminus. Giving me a spark of faith in humanity, 97 percent said yes.
[More]
A couple of scenes suggested that the writers were trying for moral relativism with the Terminus society. In a vacuum devoid of context, locking people in train cars, then killing them and eating them is wrong. But what if there are extenuating circumstances? In a flashback, we see that Terminus leader Gareth and his family were in a train car when the previous Terminus bosses pulled his sister out to rape and kill her. And in a present-day scene, Gareth's mom (Terminus Mary, who greeted our heroes upon their arrival last season) tells Carol that they did what they had to do: Evil was done to them, so they have to do evil to other people in order to survive. As Gareth puts it in the flashback: "Either you're the cattle or the butcher."
The society of Terminus has embraced the cannibal lifestyle and the dogma that goes with it – as the "Talking Dead" panel noted, the slaughterhouse scenes were just another day at the office for the butchers, who see murder as just a job. (Those who didn't embrace the societal norms were presumably killed, or perhaps some escaped the compound.) But it should be noted that the Termites have embraced the idea that "Because Group A (the rapists) did wrong to Group B (Gareth's group), Group B is justified in killing Group C (Rick's group)." Rick's vengeance on the Termites is different, as it follows much more sound moral reasoning: Group B did wrong to Group C, so Group C is justified in killing Group B (but ONLY Group B).
I think a lot of viewers felt the same as "Talking Dead" guest Conan O'Brien, who said he wanted to climb through his TV and help Rick kill Termites. This is because the episode, purposefully or not, created a crystal-clear moral situation. In the most violent pre-credits sequence in the history of TV – one that would make Quentin Tarantino do a spit-take -- the Termites knock out prisoners with a baseball bat, slit their throats and let the blood pool into a trough. (Pause to reflect for a moment that this is allowed on American TV, but Rick had to say "screwed" rather than "f----d" in last season's final line.) Later, the butchers would presumably put a bullet into the brain so the corpses don't turn into walkers, then prepare the meat as they would with a cow.
The opening scene – along with details like the pile of kids' toys in the salvage room -- allows a viewer to utterly loathe the Termites and experience immense satisfaction at what are arguably the three most awesome moments in the series' history, two of which star Carol: 1) Carol blows up the propane tank, sending walker bits flying sky-high, 2) Rick mows down the Termites from behind with a machine gun, and 3) Carol opens a door and casually steps aside to let the walkers maul the wounded Terminus Mary, as if welcoming them to a buffet line.
Meanwhile, outside the compound, the naturally peaceful Tyreese struggles to find a place in his mind where he's able to kill his enemy. When the Terminus soldier threatens to murder baby Judith, Tyreese is able to tap into that place of lethal violence, but if he had witnessed the episode's opening scene, he probably could've gotten there even faster.
Through the Gareth flashbacks, and through his current character arc that will presumably play out as Season 5 goes forward, viewers will be asked to sympathize with Gareth. Last season briefly toyed with the idea of the Governor re-inventing himself as the peaceful "Brian" before he backslid into Governor mode, and viewers were let off the hook from asking whether the Governor deserved a second chance. After all, people can change, and perhaps Gareth will realize the error of his ways.
That having been said, Rick will be justified in mowing down that son of a bitch without hesitation the next time he sees him, because locking people in train cars, then killing and eating them is never morally justifiable.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheWed, 15 Oct 2014 19:45:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/10/15/Can-we-all-agree-that-locking-people-in-train-cars-and-killing-and-eating-them-is-wrong‘Hannibal,’ ‘Walking Dead,’ ‘Bates Motel’ provide 1-2-3 TV horror punchhttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/3/17/Hannibal-Walking-Dead-Bates-Motel-provide-123-TV-horror-punch
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//lizzie-walking-dead.jpg">
I have a friend, Shaune, who's a big horror movie fan, but he has found the current character stuff on "The Walking Dead" rather boring. This is understandable: Television has never been able to be as flat-out scary as movies. There's something about a dark theater, big screen and big sound. Plus, weirdly, the fact that characters are more secondary (and disposable) in movies than on TV helps the scare factor. When watching an "X-Files" monster-of-the-week, for example, you don't have to worry that Mulder or Scully will be killed off. When watching a horror movie, everyone's expendable.
[More]
That having been said, horror TV shows can work very well – but for different reasons. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2243973/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"Hannibal"</a> (Fridays on NBC), <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/?ref_=nv_sr_1" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (Sundays on AMC) and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2188671/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" target="_blank">"Bates Motel"</a> (Mondays on A&E) make a delicious 1-2-3 punch for "horror TV" fans – or, to put in more accurately, fans of down-and-dirty character shows. These programs won't make you jump off your couch or give you nightmares, but they do fascinatingly probe the dim recesses of the human psyche. Another connection is that all three are based on other source material – books ("Hannibal" and "Bates Motel") and comic books ("The Walking Dead"). While the "Hannibal" and "Bates" franchises became movies, it's relevant to note that they didn't originate there.
All three of these shows set up not-quite-normal worlds that are perfect for exploring the darker sides of human nature. Most notable is "The Walking Dead," set in an anarchic zombie apocalypse. The story of Lizzie – who doesn't grasp the value of human life or the difference between being alive and dead -- would be one of those tragic "no easy answers" stories in the real world. We'd lock her away in an asylum and tell ourselves she's being treated humanely, at least. And it'd be the right decision, because, as Carol observes, "She can't be around other people." In a zombie apocalypse, where there are no asylums, the only solution is to shoot her in the back of the head "Of Mice and Men" style. I think that's why we saw a bunch of weeping guests on "Talking Dead" – it wasn't just the tragedy of Mika's and Lizzie's deaths, it was the knowledge that executing Lizzie was the right and moral thing for Carol to do.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//norman-bates-motel.jpg">
The world of "Bates Motel" is the exact opposite of "Dead's" – it's not the lack of institutions, but rather institutions themselves that cause chaos for Norma Bates as she attempts to run a motel in a small Oregon town. Most prominently, Norma bought a motel on a highway that is soon going to be bypassed, so she seems destined to take a fiscal bath. But also, Oregon's (and the federal government's) war on marijuana leads to the violence that serves as the backdrop of White Pine Bay, which is thriving thanks to the delicate "look the other way" balance overseen by the sheriff. Norman's high school crush Bradley kills the drug kingpin who killed her dad, then Norman and brother Dylan (who works for the pot growers) help her flee town. But I think it's safe to say that Bradley, Norman, Dylan and Norma are far from done with their "drug problem."
(I wonder if the producers breathed a huge sigh of relief last year that they didn't set their show in Washington state, which legalized and regulated marijuana after "Bates Motel" started production. If Oregon were to follow suit, the show would have little choice but to work that into the plotline – which, truth be told, could be quite fascinating.)
Additionally, Norman is mentally unstable. (He'd have suffered Lizzie's fate by now if he lived in a zombie apocalypse.) We viewers know he killed his father and his teacher during "blackouts," where he can't remember what he did after the fact. While the abusive Mr. Bates had it coming, Miss Watson didn't, so "Bates Motel" is now walking a delicate line where its main character is a hormonally imbalanced murderer. He is quite sympathetic, though, thanks largely to the performance of Freddie Highmore.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//hannibal1.jpg">
"Hannibal" does "Bates Motel" one better: Its title character kills and eats people, and blames it on his "friend" Will (who is wrongly on trial for murder this season) – and unlike Norman or Lizzie, Hannibal is well aware of everything he's doing. Deliciously played by Mads Mikkelsen, Hannibal is a villain we love to hate (and hate to love). I'm rooting for Will and against Hannibal. Yet there's no denying that it's compelling to see how far Hannibal can insinuate himself into law enforcement (he's taken over Will's position as an FBI crime consultant) while spending his free time killing, preparing and eating people – and also serving them to his FBI colleagues with artistic flair in his dining room.
While "Dead" and "Bates" have character arcs and plot lines, "Hannibal" tiptoes the fine line of style. Last season, we'd see Hannibal serving a delicious-looking meal and wonder if it was human rather than beef or pork. Now, we actually see him cutting up a human calf with a bandsaw, then proceeding to prepare leg-of-human for himself. Because he always adds in delicious vegetables and a carefully selected wine, a viewer can't deny that Hannibal is – as my friend Seth says -- a baller in the kitchen. He is also efficient, with the way he packs and freezes the rest of the leg for future meals. With all of its culinary scenes, "Hannibal" often makes me hungry while watching it; it's a great show to watch over a box of Sour Patch Kids and a bowl of popcorn.
Executive producer Bryan Fuller is a proven genius – see "Dead Like Me" and "Wonderfalls" – but, my, what a delicate path "Hannibal" walks. There's hardly any plot to it – in fact, the season's opening prologue showed us that Hannibal will kill Laurence Fishburne's Jack Crawford later in the narrative -- and it's always in danger of going from the most disturbing show on TV to the most silly. It also faces the "Prison Break" problem: Once the prisoners escaped, the show would be over; because the show was popular, the escape plot was padded out, and it became a worse show. "Hannibal" seems like it would do well to have Hannibal be found out (currently, at least four characters are highly suspicious of Hannibal), and Will cleared of all charges, at the end of this season. But that also means the show will be over.
"Bates Motel" and especially "The Walking Dead" have kept their narratives fresh even though they are also shows with end goals. In "Bates," it's getting Norman to the point he's at in "Psycho"; in "The Walking Dead," it's finding a cure to the outbreak. I think the goal should always be good TV, even if means a popular show like "Hannibal" comes to a natural end. I would recommend that NBC immediately signs Fuller to launch another show, then hypes it up as the next project from the man behind "Hannibal." Indeed, FX's "American Horror Story" uses the format of keeping the same crew (and even some of the same cast) but making a new show every year. Interestingly, the first and second seasons of "AHS" (I haven't tuned in since) floundered, in my opinion, because it put an emphasis on weirdness and scares over characters.
"The Walking Dead," "Bates Motel" and "Hannibal" are all character-driven shows, and that's the best way for horror to work on TV.
HannibalBates Motel/PsychoTelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 17 Mar 2014 17:19:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/3/17/Hannibal-Walking-Dead-Bates-Motel-provide-123-TV-horror-punchDid anyone else think Rick was dead?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/2/11/Did-anyone-else-think-Rick-was-dead
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//carl-walking-dead.jpg">
With Rick lying on a sofa without moving, Carl puking up his breakfast and bizarre dream sequences popping up (albeit from Michonne, not Carl), Sunday's mid-fourth-season premiere of AMC's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> obviously called to mind the "Buffy" episode "The Body." It's a credit to the show's unpredictability that I thought they might kill off the main character, and a credit to its structure that it didn't seem too hoary when Rick turned out to be alive.
[More]
The hour had very little dialogue as it embarked on what seems to be the new format coming out of the big prison battle in December: Focusing on individuals or small groups adrift in the Georgia backwoods. This first episode zeroed in on Michonne in one subplot and Carl in the other. In a case of sharp writing, the scene of Michonne dreaming about her child and husband – both presumably deceased now – made me wonder if some of the Carl stuff could also be a dream, which added another layer to the mystery of whether Rick was dead or just in a deep recuperative slumber.
My mind drew parallels between Buffy's numb, disconnected reactions (thinking it was important to adjust her mom's skirt, puking on the rug, calmly calling Giles, politely thanking the EMTs) and Carl's. He draws a pair of walkers into a neighboring yard and almost gets killed, then explores the house – nominally to stock up on food – but almost gets killed by another walker, then eats 120 ounces of pudding on the roof rather than bringing the food back to the secured house with his dad.
And just as "The Body" ends with the dead rising (a vampire in the morgue, not Buffy's mom – although the next episode riffed on the latter concept), I thought "After" might end with Rick turning into a zombie and Carl having to kill him. As it turned out, "The Walking Dead" didn't go quite that far, and instead of one of the grimmest imaginable endings to an episode, we got one of the series' happiest endings when Michonne reunites with Rick and Carl. (They should've shown the actual hugging though.)
And we also learned something important about Carl. Even though Rick says "You're a man now," the episode revealed that he's very much a kid: He had a trial run at going it alone with his dad "dead" on the couch, and he reverted to impulsive childlike decisions. (Buffy did, too, in "The Body," if only in the sense that she needed her friends and Giles during the time after her mother's death, and Dawn was even more immature in the following episode when she tried to resurrect Joyce.) Carl is unable to kill "walker" Rick and is willing to die for that failure. (On another note, of course, it's a blessing that he is unable to pull the trigger, because Rick was still alive. Very stupid on his part to wake up moaning like a walker, by the way.)
The brilliance of "The Walking Dead" is that it can be many things: Big questions like the radio transmission give it a "Lost"-like watercooler aspect, and it can do both big action episodes and intimate character pieces. While the December finale ("Too Far Gone") where the Governor waged war on the prison was hyped up, I actually preferred an episode earlier in the fall ("Live Bait") where the Governor toyed with re-inventing himself as a good person named Brian. Regrettably, the writers chose not to pursue that path for very long, and the Governor reverted to form the moment he golf-clubbed his henchman on top of an RV.
However, the Brian episode seems to be indicative of the thrust of Season 4: The exploration of how a zombie apocalypse can change people, either because the environment forces them to change, or because they see it as an opportunity to be a different person. (And to what degree that change is genuine, and to what degree it is faked.) Sometimes it brings out the worst in a person (the Governor), sometimes the best (Daryl), and sometimes they move into a moral gray area (Carol).
Next week, it seems we'll catch up with Tyreese, Beth, Maggie and Glenn and find out what shapes this latest fire forges them into.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheTue, 11 Feb 2014 02:34:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2014/2/11/Did-anyone-else-think-Rick-was-deadWhere does ‘The Walking Dead’ rank among the all-time greats?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2013/4/1/Where-does-The-Walking-Dead-rank-among-the-alltime-greats
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead8.jpg">
I swung in for a sandwich at the local Jimmy John's the other day, and as often happens, my chat with owner Jon Oja quickly switched from sandwiches to movies and TV. We both said we were looking forward to the <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"Walking Dead"</a> Season 3 finale, and he mentioned he thinks the show is one of the best on TV ... ever.
[More]
A simple enough bit of hyperbole, and one that comes up regularly when intelligent TV fans discuss good TV (and Jon has great taste -- he's lent me several good foreign films I wouldn't have otherwise seen). But it stuck in my mind as I watched Sunday's culmination of the Governor vs. Rick's group arc. Although I've always watched and supported the show, it really hadn't occurred to me before this: "The Walking Dead" does deserve to be in the mix of the all-time greats.
Granted, even Sunday's episode -- arguably the best of the series so far -- had flaws, but these are the types of flaws you tend to think of the next day. Why was Andrea chatting with a dying Milton while the pliers was just sitting there? Why did the prison and Woodbury survivors settle in the prison rather than Woodbury? Didn't it seem like there used to be more residents of Woodbury than we saw in this episode? Weren't the Governor and his two loyalists heading toward the prison for another shot at revenge at the end? I guess not, but that point was cleared up more so in the "Talking Dead" discussion than in the episode itself.
Then there are questions of character motivation, although these can be considered interesting talking points rather than flaws in the narrative. Throughout the entire series, Rick mistrusted every new person he met. Now he's letting all of Woodbury stay in his enclave. What new bit of information or experience sparked his new way of looking at things? We saw Carl gun down a Woodbury boy in cold blood rather than risk trusting him; as recently as last week, Rick had considered sacrificing Michonne, and last season he was within a hair's breadth of letting Randall die rather than risk trusting him. And now he has the gall to question his son for following his tenets?
Continuing to argue against the question of whether "The Walking Dead" is among the best shows ever, I'd say a handful of contemporary series are superior. I had "Parenthood," "The Clone Wars" and "Bunheads" higher on my 2012 list. The first is a great primetime family soap, the second brought (god, I hate using the past tense here) "Star Wars" to life in its purest form on the small screen, and the third keeps the "Gilmore Girls" vibe alive with a unique small-town ballet-school setting.
These shows perfect old ideas, but "The Walking Dead" is arguably breaking new ground: It's a science fiction show whose reality is both completely impossible and entirely believable, and this is the reason it deserves to be ranked among the best ever. The attention to detail lavished on every episode since the pilot is why each subsequent episode -- regardless of its internal flaws -- tends to build on what has come before and become the best episode up to that point. And this is remarkable because in the show's slow-burning early days, in the back of my mind, I doubted the longevity of a zombie series (fans of the long-running "Walking Dead" comic book no doubt knew better).
I'm not saying "The Walking Dead" hasn't -- or can't have -- good character arcs. Andrea's attempts to bridge the differences between the prison and Woodbury ultimately played out well, for example. I also enjoyed Merle's redemption yarn last week. The idea of Rick's most questionable ideals being passed on -- in extreme form -- to his son will no doubt be a gripping centerpiece of Season 4.
But what makes "The Walking Dead" great is that the threat of the zombies has never become comical or something to be dismissed. Sure, they are easier to kill now than in the beginning, but that's entirely because our heroes (and even the villains -- hats off to the walkers-meet-machine-guns sequence on Sunday) have learned how to kill them; it's not because the walkers gradually became cartoons.
Furthermore, the world consistently looks like what you'd expect in a zombie apocalypse: Barren, with the detritus of a once-sprawling society scattered about, often with just enough walker extras shambling in the background to remind us why it's dangerous to be on the move rather than holing up somewhere. But there's also that ever-so-slight hint of beauty to an open traffic-free road, isn't there?
Despite hardly ever addressing it through dialogue, the larger picture of this dystopia hangs over "The Walking Dead" like a shroud, and it makes every second of the show richer. How many more people are alive on the planet? Since we only see the perspective of Rick's group, we don't know. But we can extrapolate based on the number of survivors they've run across: the farmstead family, Randall's gang, the surviving prisoners, Tyreese's group, the random hitchhiker, and of course the Woodbury citizens.
I'd guess thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands (down from an Earth population of 7 billion), and it makes me imagine a Season 10 of "The Walking Dead" when the plague's cure is found and we get to the phase of rebuilding civilization. Do we want to rebuild world governments like they used to be, or do we want to try something new?
When the notion that everyone becomes a walker upon death was introduced in Season 2, I thought it was somewhat hoary, for the sake of the shock of Shane being revived. Although I'm more patient than the average viewer (for example, I liked the first two seasons of "The Killing"), I'm accustomed to relatively quick explanations. But "The Walking Dead" isn't afraid to let things simmer; it's more than a year later and we are no closer to getting an answer to the mystery of how everyone is infected. We may never get an answer. Yet it certainly has upped the dramatic ante, as seen with the danger of Milton turning, and a bitten Andrea having to put a bullet to her head. The thematic side is just as juicy, as crystallized by the Governor's twisted yet spot-on analysis of the new world: "You kill or you die -- or you die and you kill."
The specific scenario is unique to this piece of sci-fi, yet it has wider implications, stuff I think will be explored next year through the focal point of Carl. The individual parts of this show aren't bad, but with the way it raises big questions without explicitly including them in a given script, "The Walking Dead" is exponentially better than the sum of its parts. And that's why I can come to the curious conclusion that while a handful of current shows are superior, "The Walking Dead" truly does rank among the best shows ever.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 01 Apr 2013 07:29:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2013/4/1/Where-does-The-Walking-Dead-rank-among-the-alltime-greats‘Talking Dead’ like a hug for ‘Walking Dead’ fanshttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2013/3/4/Talking-Dead-like-a-hug-for-Walking-Dead-fans
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//talking-dead.jpg">
Can we talk for a moment about what a great show <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/talking-dead" target="_blank">"Talking Dead"</a> (9 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC) is? No, not "Walking Dead," "Talking Dead" -- the show that airs immediately after the zombie drama and dissects what we've just seen.
[More]
Obviously, "Talking Dead" couldn't exist without "The Walking Dead," but by the same token, I think "Walking Dead" would be less fun if it wasn't followed by "Talking Dead." As host Chris Hardwick said last night, the show has become a hug for people after watching an hour of horrific -- albeit entertaining -- post-apocalyptic drama. The talk show has found a nice balance between P.R. ("Walking Dead" cast and crew often land on the couch) and criticism. Hardwick is clearly an enthusiastic fan, but he has an analytical mind, not the typical P.R. mind -- he's not likely to rip "The Walking Dead," but he can poke fun at the show, and AMC allows him some leeway to do that.
"Talking Dead" has done a nice job of choosing guests, too. Last night's session with actors Scott Porter and actress/podcaster Aisha Tyler provided a gripping analysis of the mindset of crazy Morgan in "Clear." The week before, "30 Rock" actor Scott Adsit was quite critical of the episode. I admire the confidence of AMC to have their hit show be open to criticism after it airs. At the same time, it must be a financial boon -- the cost of "Talking Dead" must be about 10 percent of "Walking Dead," yet I bet it retains at least half of the audience; considering the recent expansion from a half-hour to an hour, it's gotta be a money-maker.
Correct me if I've overlooked anything here, but no show other than "The Walking Dead" is followed by a companion talk show. TV Guide Channel used to air "Curb: The Discussion" after reruns of "Curb Your Enthusiasm." "Curb" actress Susie Essman led a lively discussion about the issues raised in the episode.
Of course, there are Internet podcasts. They usually air in the week between episodes, giving the hosts and guests time to re-watch the episode a few times and really dig into it. The best I know of is "Clone Wars Declassified" on <a href="http://www.shotglassdigital.com/artist/rebelforceradio/
" target="_blank">Rebel Force Radio</a>, hosted by Jason Swank and Jimmy McInerney. How cool would it be if this show aired in a studio setting after new episodes of "The Clone Wars?" Like "Walking Dead," "Star Wars" is so popular that fears of it being criticized shouldn't be a P.R. concern, and Jason and Jimmy Mac aren't afraid to question or criticize specific aspects of an episode.
And, of course, there are more episode reviews on the Internet than ever before. <a href="http://tvrecaps.ew.com/" target="_blank">Entertainment Weekly</a> and <a href="http://www.avclub.com/section/tv/" target="_blank">The Onion A.V. Club</a> provide the best episode analyses, although there are gaps in their coverage -- for example, neither covers "The Clone Wars." (Both cover "The Walking Dead," though.) EW is particularly prone to drop coverage of a show based on low reader response.
But the post-episode talk show might be the perfect format, and I think other series should consider trying it. I think AMC should do one for "The Killing" -- this would have a certain amount of risk in that a guest could end up making a spot-on prediction that some might see as a spoiler for future episodes. But like "Walking Dead," "The Killing" -- which will return for Season 3 later this year -- demands to be discussed immediately after it airs.
Actually, any good drama (it wouldn't work as well with a sitcom) lends itself to a follow-up talk show -- how fun would it be to get a breakdown of "Bunheads" afterward, complete with cast interviews and colorful behind-the-scenes footage? Or a "Parenthood" talk show as an analysis of human behavior in universal situations?
Hopefully some other buzzworthy shows will consider airing the buzz in talk-show format, following the successful template of "Talking Dead."
What current TV shows would you like to have a companion talk show?
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 04 Mar 2013 17:08:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2013/3/4/Talking-Dead-like-a-hug-for-Walking-Dead-fansDoes anyone else think ‘The Walking Dead’s’ Rick is a jerk?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2013/2/15/Does-anyone-else-think-The-Walking-Deads-Rick-is-a-jerk
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//rick-walking-dead.jpg">
You know what I'm getting tired of on <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/?ref_=tt_ov_inf" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead?"</a> Rick not trusting anyone outside of his group. When this group originally formed, they were just random people who intuitively clumped together in the face of an unknown disaster. Now his time as a leader has gone to his head -- in the sense that he's losing it.
[More]
Rick was a good leader for a while. He often did things that needed to be done, but that the others couldn't, such as killing Zombie Sophia when she emerged from the barn in Season 2. Rick and the Governor -- who put a bullet to the head of a walker-bitten Woodbury citizen in Sunday's midseason premiere -- have this in common: They do what they think needs to be done to maintain order.
But just as we (unlike the characters) saw that the Guvna had lost it -- keeping walker heads in fish tanks and storing his zombie daughter in a closet -- Rick is losing it, too. On Sunday, he saw a vision of his dead wife, pulled out his gun and had everyone worried that he was going to snap and start shooting.
Last season when Rick (admittedly, with the help of fellow alpha males Shane and Daryl) had Randall tied up in a barn, I kept yelling at my screen like C-3PO in "The Empire Strikes Back": "Trust him! Trust him!" But at least Randall was at least sort of shifty. (We never found out for sure if he was a good guy or bad guy, since Shane snapped and killed him.)
In Season 3, a foursome has found its way into the prison -- Tyrese, his wife and a couple of other guys. Tyrese has none of the shiftiness of Randall; he's a rock-solid and genuine person who would obviously be a great ally, if only for his muscle. He and his wife are clearly worthy of joining the group, especially now that they've lost Daryl. One of the other guys is a big question mark; he proposes killing Carl and Carol. But this is arguably in reaction to the way he and his friends have been rejected and caged in one part of the building by Rick's group. Basically, Tyrese's group is seeking the same thing Rick's group did in Season 2 when they came upon Hershel's barn -- an alliance of mutual benefit: We get the safety of a larger group, you get the benefit of more contributors.
Also, consider Rick's relationship with Michonne. He wants to kick her out of the prison, too, but a simple conversation would probably be enough to tell him that not only is she trustworthy, she'd actually be an outstanding asset to their little community. I mean, even Andrea can see the value of Michonne, and when "The Walking Dead" started, Andrea was unstable compared to Rick's stability.
In the early days, there were loose cannons in Rick's group (think of Carol's husband). Heck, even current group member Axel, who we've seen put the moves on teenage Beth, is deserving of wariness. But Rick let these people onto his team. Ideally, he should use the good character judgment he must've had in his days as a lawman and bring Tyrese's gang into the group, too. What's the worst that could happen? I guess it's theoretically possible that Tyrese's group is just playing nice so they can rape, murder and eat Rick's group for sustenance. But: No. 1, bring it on -- an armed Carl and Carol alone could probably take them. And No. 2, if you go through life not trusting anyone and only worrying about survival, you might as well be dead anyway.
Of course, it's been clearly chronicled -- from the phantom phone calls to the visions of Lori -- that Rick is losing his mind, and that his treatment of people like Tyrese and Michonne and Daryl (who he doesn't trust to keep an eye on brother Merle within the prison) is not meant to represent level-headedness. Now it's time for someone to step up and take over, if only so Rick isn't the one in charge anymore. I think the writers moved Daryl -- who struck out on his own with Merle -- out of the equation in part to set up a more complicated question of who will be the next leader. Michonne? Tyrese? Glenn? Upcoming episodes should be interesting, but in the meantime, I for one am tired of Rick's s**t.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheFri, 15 Feb 2013 03:37:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2013/2/15/Does-anyone-else-think-The-Walking-Deads-Rick-is-a-jerk‘Walking Dead’ winter finale thrilling, but filled with convenienceshttp://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/12/2/Walking-Dead-winter-finale-thrilling-but-filled-with-conveniences
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-andrea.jpg">
The situation <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> has set up this season, with the Woodbury camp versus the prison camp and all the conflicting allegiances and misunderstandings, provides almost inevitable thrills. And Sunday's winter finale was no exception; in many ways, it gave us what we were waiting for: A showdown between the two groups, Michonne meeting Andrea and the Governor again, Andrea discovering the Guv's collection of heads and the chained-up Penny walker, and brothers Merle and Daryl meeting again.
[More]
However, I was a bit put off by the plot conveniences in "Made to Suffer," particularly the fact that Andrea doesn't actually see Rick or any of the major players from her group because this battle is fought under the cover of smoke bombs (she sees one of the prisoners who joined Rick's group after she got split up from them). Oddly, despite his attempts to keep Andrea from identifying the "terrorists" as they attacked Woodbury to rescue Glenn and Maggie, the Governor puts Merle and Daryl on display in "the pit" at episode's end with Andrea standing right there. So now he has made enemies of not only Daryl, whom he could've killed rather than captured, but also Andrea and Merle. What's his reasoning there?
Another disappointing part of this scene is that the Governor -- by turning on Merle for inexplicable reasons -- puts Merle and Daryl on the same side by default, so the brothers' reunion doesn't have the conflict we anticipated. However, I think the writers will eventually make up for this: I suspect the brothers will escape together, and all kinds of personal conflicts will get rekindled when Daryl brings Merle back to Rick's group.
Another convenience throughout the entire third season so far is that Michonne doesn't talk much. Now, I like the character a lot; she's one of TV's coolest action heroes with the way she mows down walkers with that katana. However, her failure to explain to Rick's team her plan to go after Andrea causes a lot of unnecessary confusion. Then she doesn't say anything to Andrea after stabbing the Governor in the eye, and then she doesn't say anything to Rick's gang upon returning from her secret (failed, in part because of her unwillingness to talk) mission to pull Andrea out. It seems like the writers are using Michonne's lack of verboseness to drag out the plot.
The previews suggest that the Governor will continue to be a major bad guy going forward this season, and I understand why the writers want to keep him around -- he has become an iconic baddie we love to hate. But I doubt I was the only one who wished Michonne -- rather than stabbing Penny through the back of the skull -- had thrown the juvenile walker at her father so she could tear him apart. The sudden vacuum in the villain department might've been worth it just to see that scene.
The Guvna -- now sporting the eye patch that I understand he is known for in the comics -- will eventually get his just desserts, but I hope he doesn't spiral into stupidity and cartoonish evil. I'm already a bit worried, based on previews that show Andrea is still with him, that he doesn't realize Andrea would be put off by his capture of Daryl. I don't have much worry that Andrea will side with the Governor, but I kind of wish she wasn't still hanging around in Woodbury.
The winter finale also introduces some nice new elements, notably a whole new group of survivors finding their way to the prison (and Carl copying his dad's strategy of helping them escape a horde of walkers, but then locking them up for safekeeping). Also, the mustachioed prisoner seems to be putting the moves on every female in the group (well, just the single ones, as he is a gentleman, of course).
But, of course, the big question is: How the heck will the captive Daryl and Merle (and the sort-of captive Andrea) escape the mob scene in the midseason cliffhanger? Share your theories about that and other "Walking Dead" plot points in the thread below.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheSun, 02 Dec 2012 23:26:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/12/2/Walking-Dead-winter-finale-thrilling-but-filled-with-conveniencesFirst episode impressions: ‘The Walking Dead’ Season 3http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/10/15/First-episode-impressions-The-Walking-Dead-Season-3
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-michonne.jpg">
<a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead's"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC) third season starts with a rarity: Good news. The gang finds a prison that could serve as an excellent home base. They even enjoy a picnic and a sing-along.
[More]
But that doesn't last long. A lot of the appeal of "The Walking Dead" comes from its (well earned) reputation that each episode is gonna end with a shocker. "Seed" has a pretty good one, and we'll find out in coming weeks if removing an infected body part (Herschel's lower leg) can save a person from becoming a walker. Also, we're briefly introduced to a group of live prisoners, which could set up the tried-and-true human vs. human conflict over who gets to stay at the prison in coming weeks (I've learned from past episodes that "Can't we all just get along?" rarely works on this show).
We also meet the much-hyped Michonne, the katana wielder who keeps two armless, jawless walkers as pets (presumably because it allows her to avoid the attention of hordes; maybe comic-book readers can fill me in if there's more to it). She cuts (pun intended) an impressive figure, chopping off walker heads and skewering a pair of them. "Seed" is a little short on characterization, though; all we know is Michonne has been taking care of Andrea all winter and now the duo is planning on moving out from their safe haven for unknown reasons.
Carl is a revelation in this episode, as Rick (clearly the leader now, with Daryl as his second-in-command) trusts him to stand watch and shoot walkers. (The apocalypse has toughened everyone up, as we see Beth and Carol also taking down walkers with pointy objects and bullets, respectively.) Carl has grown up a lot since we last saw him -- and he seems to like older women, as he eyes Beth a couple times. It makes sense that a kid would grow up fast in a zombie apocalypse, as children would be even more adaptable than adults who are set in their ways.
The biggest mystery of the moment is Lori's pregnancy. Lori, in fact, states a fear that would make a very cool gross-out visual: If her baby is stillborn in this world where people turn into zombies upon death, would the baby tear her up from the inside? It's hard to imagine "The Walking Dead" featuring a baby as a cast member, and combined with the fact that fans don't like Lori (and her husband, Rick, doesn't seem to, either), I'm guessing both mother and child could be dispatched in the weeks to come. Then again, nothing is predictable on this show.
What are your thoughts on the Season 3 premiere? Share your comments below.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 15 Oct 2012 00:53:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/10/15/First-episode-impressions-The-Walking-Dead-Season-3Best approach in zombie apocalypse: Democracy or Ricktatorship?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/3/19/Best-approach-in-zombie-apocalypse-Democracy-or-Ricktatorship
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-season-2-finale.jpg">
<a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> wrapped up its mostly great second season on Sunday with the epic farmstead battle we expected, plus a couple new elements -- a hooded figure hauling two tamed zombies on chains (!) and a prison that looks like it would be nicely fortified against walkers.
[More]
The most impressive part of this show is that after 19 episodes, the zombies still seem like a legitimate threat. A lot of TV and movie battles nowadays are just so much chaos, but "Beside the Dying Fire" is wonderfully staged as we follow Rick and Carl's barn exploits, everyone else scrambling to leave the farm, the mowing-down of zombies from the cars and trucks, the narrow escapes, and Andrea getting separated from the group.
We find out why side characters like Patricia and Jimmy existed -- to get gruesomely devoured by walkers, thus buying time for the main characters. It's easy to say that they were just underdeveloped zombie bait all along, but it's still a better use of extraneous characters than we saw on "Lost," which had 40-plus crash survivors for no logical reason.
The walkers are slow enough that we get the typical scenes of Herschel and others picking them off with shotguns; I always find these scenes entertaining, even though it's kind of like watching someone else play a video game, largely because the extras' performances and the makeup and sound effects are so good. But the undead also swarm the farm in such numbers that it's scary. "The Walking Dead" earns the scene of the relieved survivors meeting back at the highway.
But then the episode moves into something it's not as good at: Character stuff. Rick tells Lori the truth: He killed Shane mostly in self-defense, but kind of in preemptive defense of the group. She hates him for it (at least for now). Also, he tells the group that he knew for quite some time that they are all infected (as I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not sure why it's logistically a big deal that everyone becomes a zombie upon dying, although I guess it would be emotionally disturbing to think about), and the group hates him for hoarding that information. And then Rick chews out the whole group, yelling that he didn't ask for this (Andrew Lincoln reaches a new level of overacting here). Yet he basically says that their little democracy hasn't worked, so it's his way or the highway from now on.
I don't think the show earns this moment. The group's democratic -- but not overly bureaucratic -- approach actually has worked pretty well. It's a shame that the group didn't vote to spare Randall, but at least they were right to talk about it. Rick may or may not have been right to kill Shane, but Lori and Carl and everyone deserves time to be shocked by this information for a while.
At any rate, Season 3 could potentially be a parallel to how the earliest human civilizations developed. Without a broader government structure, I think it's natural that the group should continue to operate like a communal democracy, with everyone contributing what skills they can, and maybe overthrowing Rick if he continues to overact ... I mean, act unhinged. Of course, the two new elements (the hooded figure and the prison setting), not to mention future walker swarms, will test that structure.
What are your thoughts on the Season 2 finale? What themes will "The Walking Dead" explore in Season 3?
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 19 Mar 2012 22:18:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/3/19/Best-approach-in-zombie-apocalypse-Democracy-or-RicktatorshipDid Shane want to die?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/3/12/Did-Shane-want-to-die
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//shane-walking-dead1.jpg">
Maybe it's because I'm in the midst of some serious "Angel" geekery with my "Rewatching the classics" project, but the Shane-Rick showdown in last night's <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC) reminded me of Faith begging Angel to kill her in Season 1's "Five by Five."
[More]
The Shane arc was played a bit more closely to the vest, though. Although my heart was racing during that final scene and I knew I was watching a soon-to-be-classic TV moment, things weren't clearly spelled out for the viewer.
Did Shane confront Rick as a means of committing suicide? Or was it a case of him going crazy with love and jealousy and taking things too far?
Whereas "Angel" gave us the "wow" moment and then let us soak in all the emotions of it, "The Walking Dead" gave us the "wow" moment but leaves lingering questions. Although I sort of wish it would've dwelled on the "Fall of Shane" arc a bit more and given Jon Bernthal some meatier material, there's no denying that there are some compelling questions heading into next Sunday's Season 2 finale.
Was Shane going crazy by natural means, or was he somehow infected by something related to the zombie plague?
It's been reported that the information Rick has been keeping secret all year -- whatever the CDC scientist whispered to him in last year's finale -- will be revealed next week. As of now, the logical assumption is that people (or at least some people) turn into zombies simply by dying (we've seen this with the two cops and now Randall and Shane). They no longer have to be bitten by a zombie to turn into one.
This wouldn't necessarily be a huge deal logistically. It would simply mean you'd have to smash the corpse's head in before the funeral. Therefore, in order for this to have dramatic heft, I have to assume people can be infected while they are still alive and that living people can actually turn into zombies -- or something along those lines. I think the exact nature of how that happens will be central to Season 3.
While I can't argue with last night's episode in terms of pure pulp-entertainment brilliance, I have to note that the Randall arc was kind of wasted when Shane murders him as part of his scheme. Talk about a path not taken: Randall indicates that his group is only about five miles away and that Shane would fit in great with them.
We'll never get the definitive answer as to whether Randall was a wicked schemer in the vein of "Lost's" Ben Linus or just a survivor caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's too bad. As much as I accept that cable networks' shorter seasons allow for more money and attention to be lavished on a per-episode basis, I can't help but think the Randall arc would've been handled better in a traditional 22-episode season. Even just a flashback episode showing Randall's backstory -- a method "Lost" sometimes used -- would've been cool.
At any rate, "The Walking Dead" will certainly get away with that omission because it traded the Randall Question for all these new questions. What are your thoughts on last night's episode: Did Shane have a death wish or did he really intend to murder Rick? Was he acting under his own power or going crazy due to a zombie infection? What did the CDC guy whisper to Rick?
Share your theories in the comment threads below.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 12 Mar 2012 16:50:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/3/12/Did-Shane-want-to-dieShould the group trust Randall?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/3/5/Should-the-group-trust-Randall
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-Randall.jpg">
Watching last night's episode of <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC) -- where Randall is tortured by Daryl and nearly executed at gunpoint by Rick and then nearly knifed to death by Daryl -- I was practically yelling "Trust him! Trust him!" like C-3PO when Chewbacca is strangling Lando in "The Empire Strikes Back."
[More]
I would totally be the Dale of the group in a zombie apocalypse, arguing that we need to hold onto our morals lest civilization descend into a new dark age. Indeed, many viewers sided with Dale last night, judging from my perusal of Facebook posts where people claimed that the entire group has turned into -- I'll tone down the vocabulary since this is a family blog -- jerks.
If Rick had shot Randall while everyone except Dale and Andrea stood by meekly, it would've been tough for the show -- or at least the group of characters we've been following so far -- to recover. TV characters need not be perfect, of course, but if 90 percent of them behave in a detestable manner, a show can become dark and unsustainable.
There's been a fair amount of backlash against "The Walking Dead" in this second season, and I strongly disagree with most of it. The writing staff is underestimated: In retrospect, there was no chance at all that Rick was actually going to kill Randall. But by getting that close, "The Walking Dead" teased out the talking points it has been known for from the beginning. At the same time, it allowed Jeffrey DeMunn, unfortunately underused in Season 2 as Dale, to go out with a great monologue about holding onto civilization, followed by a wrenching death scene.
That having been said, it is quite frustrating that the group has approached this Randall situation all wrong. De-facto group leaders Rick, Shane and Daryl have been so obsessed with protecting the women and children that they've done nothing but torture Randall physically (Daryl) and psychologically (Rick and Shane, who almost kill him several times) ever since they saved his life and re-set his shattered leg.
They should've had the entire group in the barn to talk to him. When Randall mentioned that he liked video games before the apocalypse, he could've talked with Glenn about favorite games. When he mentioned he went to the same high school as Maggie, they could've reminisced about various teachers and sports teams. These conversations would verify Randall's claims that he's just a scared kid trying to survive; they would all feel more comfortable around him and be ready to assimilate him into their commune.
A group conversation would also reveal that he's a big fat liar, if that's the case. Then, if they didn't trust him, they could blindfold him, fill his ears with loud music, drop him off 18 miles away with a survival pack and say "Good luck."
Here's the rub, though: As much as I abhor the way Rick, Shane and Daryl are handling the situation, Randall is almost certainly a bad guy. On recent episodes of "Talking Dead," host Chris Hardwick has noted that "There's something off about that guy" and the Anthrax musician on last night's episode crystallized it perfectly: "Randall is Ben Linus." (Indeed, once you start down that path, the similarities between "Lost" and "The Walking Dead" are numerous. Isolated communes, no government, the mystery of what else is out there, etc.)
It's not merely a case of Randall being a fictional TV character, which necessitates that he will have an impact on the plot rather than being smoothly integrated into the group and forgotten like T-Dog. It's also his responses when tortured by Daryl: Although he claims to be just a kid trying to survive, he endures a lot of pain before spilling the beans that there are 30 people in his group. And why did he wait so long to tell the anecdote of his group members raping young girls? If he's innocent and his goal is to find refuge with this group, why not reveal everything he knows about his abhorrent previous group right away? (By the way, the casting of Michael Zegen is perfect: He looks both shifty and innocent, which is probably a big reason why Rick keeps wavering on whether to kill him.)
There's little doubt that Randall will indeed turn out to be a Ben Linus type; I just hope we don't get a scene where Maggie finally sees him and says "Hey, I know you! You were the school sociopath!" I hope it's something more surprising than that, something that doesn't underscore the stupidity of Rick's decision to isolate Randall from the others.
And I think it will be something surprising. Every time I start to underestimate "The Walking Dead," it hits me with a great finish like in last night's episode. I expect two more great hours to close out the season.
What are your thoughts on Randall? Should we trust him like Lando Calrissian -- just a guy put in a bad spot -- or is he TV's next Ben Linus, ready to spring a complex scheme that will put our heroes in danger from the 30 "others?"
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 05 Mar 2012 15:44:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2012/3/5/Should-the-group-trust-RandallWhat happened to Sophia? (and six other burning TV questions)http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2011/11/21/What-happened-to-Sophia-and-six-other-burning-TV-questions
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//sophia-walking-dead.jpg">
Part of why it's been a great TV season is that there are so many compelling questions that keep us watching from week to week. And these aren't just a matter of "Oh well, I've followed it this far so I might as well keep going" like I sometimes felt with "Lost." A lot of shows this fall actually have mysteries where I want to know the answer. Here are seven of the most burning questions among currently airing shows (No, I haven't forgotten about "Who killed Rosie Larsen?," but I'll save that for when "The Killing" returns). (All times Central.)
[More]
1. What happened to Sophia on <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Sundays on AMC)?
There are four possibilities: She's alive, she's a zombie, she's dead, or we never find out the answer. It's a testament to the amazing season that "The Walking Dead" has had that I honestly think any of the four answers is a possibility. My guess, though, is that she's alive. I think her mom and the whole gang deserves something good to happen, and I think Lori needs to see that children can not only survive in the zombie apocalypse, but also be happy. It will be interesting to see how Sophia is changed by her experience, too, although how much of that we get to see might depend on how good of an actress young Madison Lintz is; so far, Sophia has just been a plot device.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//taylor-terra-nova.jpg">
2. What is Taylor's son's evil plan on <a href="http://www.hulu.com/terra-nova" target="_blank">"Terra Nova"</a> (7 p.m. Mondays on Fox)?
We met Taylor's son, Lucas, briefly at the end of an episode, and we learned that 1, he dislikes his dad, 2, he scoffs at his dad's "precious" Terra Nova, and 3, he's compiling equipment to put together some sort of device -- perhaps his own time portal. We also know he left a bunch of sketches on rocks along a riverbank for some reason. "Terra Nova" has kind of bungled the Lucas arc because now that we've met him, he feels less like an intriguing mystery and more like an underdeveloped character. The show is in serious need of some flashback episodes to explain the Taylor family feud, and it needs some "flash-forward" episodes showing what's going on in 2149.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//siobhan-ringer.jpg">
3. Why did Siobhan fake her death on <a href="http://www.hulu.com/ringer" target="_blank">"Ringer"</a> (8 p.m. Tuesdays on The CW)?
We've been following Bridget's deception (pretending to be Siobhan), but the reason she was able to do this in the first place is because of her sister's deception: Pretending to kill herself. Siobhan is in Europe, shacking up with one of her husband's employees and making phone calls ordering a henchman to tie up her old friends in basements. It seems like Siobhan did not count on Bridget taking over her life (and her bank account). But, then again, wouldn't her faked death have been found out if she accessed her money from beyond the grave? We know Siobhan was going through a rough patch with Andrew and probably wanted to start fresh somewhere, but I feel like there's more to it than that. She certainly left Henry -- who was planning a happy future with Siobhan -- in the lurch.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//emily-revenge.jpg">
4. When will Jack realize that Emily Thorne is Amanda Clarke on <a href="http://www.hulu.com/revenge" target="_blank">"Revenge"</a> (9 p.m. Wednesdays on ABC)?
I gotta give "Revenge" credit for always making me buy into what's happening -- just barely. Emily recognizes Jack (they were best buds when they were kids), but the new name is enough to prevent him from realizing she is Amanda, even though he named his boat after her. Fine, people took different from age 9 to 25, so I'll buy it -- barely. Then the real Emily Thorne (going by the name Amanda Clarke since they traded names) comes to town and hits it off with Jack, conveniently never giving her name. OK, I'll go with it -- again, barely -- especially since things appear to get juicy in the next episode when Jack and Amanda hit it off even more. And on the boat, no less.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//rubber-man-ahs.jpg">
5. Who is in the black rubber suit on <a href="http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/ahs/" target="_blank">"American Horror Story"</a> (9 p.m. Wednesdays on FX)?
In the early episodes, this question didn't matter because it was just a horror show about weird stuff happening in the house. Whether Vivien was literally having sex with a man in a black rubber suit or just imagining it was beside the point because "AHS" operated with horror-film logic. But we now understand that dead people function as if they are alive if their death occurred on this property. (Although Tate and the maid pop up much more often than the other dead characters, it's a fairly long list at this point.) And since Vivien might be pregnant with a devil child, possibly conceived by the dead guy in the suit, the question now becomes valid.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//faye-cassie-secret-circle.jpg">
6. Who is the other witch with dark power on <a href="http://www.hulu.com/secret-circle" target="_blank">"The Secret Circle"</a> (8 p.m. Thursdays on The CW, returns Jan. 5)?
At the end of the midseason finale, the lead witch hunter mentions that there is another witch in addition to Cassie who is descended from dark magic. Because the episode references an attraction back in the day between Faye's mom and Cassie's dad, combined with the fact that Faye made it rain in the pilot episode and is always poring over Books of Shadows, the obvious answer is Faye. In fact, it might not even be intended to be a mystery at all; the dialogue might have simply been a way of saying "Faye is Cassie's half-sister." On the other hand, we know so little about the group's parents that any of the other four witches is theoretically a candidate (and we can't even rule out Jake, although that would bring some Luke-and-Leia-style awkwardness to what we've seen so far).
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//peter-fringe.jpg">
7. Is the Orange World the changed version of the Blue World, or does the Blue World that we knew exist separately on <a href="http://www.hulu.com/fringe" target="_blank">"Fringe"</a> (8 p.m. Fridays on Fox)?
Peter is back, but things are slightly off -- no one knows him (except as vague visions before his return), the psychologically disabled Walter works crime scenes remotely from the lab, and Lincoln has Peter's old place on the team and perhaps in Olivia's heart. But there's a moment of anti-déjà vu in a recent episode where Olivia can't remember receiving papers from an assistant. Did she briefly jump into the Blue World (where she knows and loves Peter), which exists side-by-side with the Orange World? I have no theories on this one; "Fringe" is so complicated that I take pride in merely understanding and enjoying what I've watched.
What are your favorite questions of the current TV season? Any theories on what the answers will be?
Terra NovaRingerRevengeAmerican Horror StoryFringeTelevisionWalking Dead, TheSecret Circle, TheMon, 21 Nov 2011 03:02:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2011/11/21/What-happened-to-Sophia-and-six-other-burning-TV-questionsOh my god, they killed Otis!http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2011/11/2/Oh-my-god-they-killed-Otis
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//shane-walking-dead.jpg">
Kind of a jerk move by Shane to kill Otis on Sunday's episode of <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC), huh? But also a shocking and fascinating one, and something that could set up TV's next great "fall to the dark side" plot.
[More]
To recap: Shane -- being pursued by a pack of zombies as he lugs valuable equipment and medicine that could save young Carl's life -- shoots his colleague Otis in the knee. As such, the zombies converge on Otis and Shane escapes with the supplies and gets the anesthetic and respirator back to the doctor in time to save Carl's life. But the moral implications are more than a bit sketchy: He kills Otis to save Carl -- and himself. There was no guarantee that killing Otis would save Carl. And there was still a chance (albeit slim) that he could escape the zombies with Otis and still save Carl.
Fans are coming down on all sides of this argument. Refreshingly, 61 percent of respondents to a "Talking Dead" poll said they would not have shot Otis. I fall into that group for a few reasons:
1. There was still a slim chance of escape.
2. In most circumstances, it is not appropriate to trade one life for another life. Certainly, it's not Shane's decision to make.
3. If Shane had helped Otis out of this jam, he would've had a friend for life, and a great story to tell the rest of the gang.
Thanks to the wonderful performance by Jon Bernthal, we see that Shane is a changed man when he gets back to the doctor's cabin. He leaves the story of what happened unfinished and vague (as viewers, we see what actually happened in a flashback), stuttering in shame and shock at what he'd done; the others interpret it as the aftereffects of fear and adrenaline, no doubt. Then he shaves his head, which serves a dual purpose: He doesn't have to explain the patch of hair that Otis had torn out, and it visually signifies to viewers that he's a cold, hard man now who is all about survival.
I love me a good "turn to the dark side" yarn, and this is certainly shaping up to be the best one of the moment. And there are no shortage of "good people gone (potentially) bad" yarns on TV right now:
• On "Ringer," Bridget is starting to get attached to her comfortable new life as Siobhan; to what lengths will she go to keep this life?
• On "The Secret Circle," Faye enjoys her witch powers a little too much, and (as we were told last week) Cassie has a lot of dark power in her.
• On "Revenge," Emily is taking down bad people in her vengeance quest. But what will she do when good people get in the way? Are they just collateral damage?
• On "American Horror Story," Ben -- for self-serving reasons -- doesn't turn in the guy who murders his mistress. Instead, he buries her under the gazebo, making himself an accessory after the fact.
These stories merely delve into the gray areas between good and evil, though. Shane commits the morally repugnant act of killing Otis, an act that almost always leads down the slippery slope to outright evil.
To wit:
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//anakin-skywalker.jpg">
One of the most famous falls to the dark side is Anakin Skywalker -- indeed, "Star Wars" is the reason I use "dark side" as a convenient term. Anakin's fall was either horribly or brilliantly told. On one hand, when he slaughters innocent, adorable Jedi younglings in "Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," it's annoying, revealing a unforgivable level of gullibility for doing what the Emperor tells him to do without questioning it.
On the other hand, it's so shocking and hard to believe that I long to understand what Anakin was thinking. I enjoyed Matthew Stover's "Revenge of the Sith" novelization, which was essentially an attempt to rectify the poor writing and acting of the movie, and I watch "The Clone Wars" in part to find signs of Anakin's instability, as if that will make the slaughter-of-children scene more believable.
While the "Star Wars" franchise (including the books and comics) is obsessed with falls to the dark side, I don't know if there's been a single auteur who delves into this theme more than Joss Whedon, nor is there anyone better at exploring it. On "Buffy" and "Angel," there are no less than four iconic falls from grace:
• The remorse-filled Angel turns into the evil, remorseless Angelus when his soul leaves his body. This character is fascinatingly ambiguous, because it seems like Angel and Angelus are largely different people inhabiting the same body. Yet even the good Angel has signs of Angelus in him (note "Enemies," where he's utterly effective at pretending to be Angelus).
• Illyria, an ancient evil demon, discovers the traits of kindness and caring by observing how Fred's friends treat her since she is in Fred's body. Because Illyria is treated differently than when she was a monster, will she act differently, too? (Unfortunately, Illyria's arc was cut off when The WB canceled "Angel" mid-story, although it sort of continued in the IDW comics.)
• Spike kills with a level of enjoyment atypical even among vampires -- until he falls in love with a good human, Buffy, and purposely acquires a soul in order to pay for and make up for his crimes and be worthy of her affections. Combined with the fact that the pre-vampire Spike (named William) was a decent person (unlike the drunkard Liam, who became Angel), Spike's story is the most heroic of the lot.
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//faith.jpg">
• But the most memorable fall-to-the-dark-side yarn from the Buffyverse is Faith's, because -- in contrast to the other three characters -- one, she is a human being, and two, her story is told linearly. We meet her as a good person, we see she enjoys slaying a bit too much, she kills a human by accident, then she kills a human on purpose and teams with the evil Mayor.
This exchange from "Bad Girls" will never cease to give me chills:
Buffy: Faith, you don't get it. You killed a man.
Faith: No, you don't get it. I don't care.
Later, Faith begins the long road back to a redemption of sorts. But can you ever be redeemed for purposely killing an innocent human being? Without a doubt, Faith ultimately saves more lives than she takes, and it's not wrong to categorize her as a hero rather than a villain. But is it all about cold, hard numbers?
I think not, and I think Shane realizes this, which is why he is struggling with what he did. Maybe he thought for a second "I can trade Otis' life for Carl's," and his action was morally flawed rather than out-and-out evil. But as the stories of Anakin, Faith, etc. show us, when you murder someone, you can't go on with your life as if nothing happened. It's not something that can go unremarked.
Did Shane kill Otis in part so that he would be unworthy of the love that Lori had already denied him? Do people commit evil acts because they hate themselves too much to act good? Is Shane all about survival now? And by becoming a cold-blooded killer does he think he is increasing his odds of survival? Does it get easier to pull the trigger each time? And does he become less human each time he pulls the trigger?
These are fascinating, timeless questions, and for anyone interested in classic explorations of morality, "The Walking Dead" will likely be a must-watch for weeks -- and maybe years -- to come.
What are your thoughts on Shane killing Otis? And what are your favorite "fall to the dark side" tales?
Star WarsTelevisionWalking Dead, TheBuffy/AngelWed, 02 Nov 2011 01:04:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2011/11/2/Oh-my-god-they-killed-OtisFirst episode impressions: ‘The Walking Dead’ Season 2http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2011/10/17/First-episode-impressions-The-Walking-Dead-Season-2
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead1.jpg">
I'm not sure if having a slow pace is a requirement for AMC shows, or if AMC seeks out these kinds of shows for its lineup, but it's definitely become the network's trademark. Sometimes it doesn't work for me: I couldn't get into "Mad Men" or "Rubicon." I did like the first season of "The Killing" a lot, but the writers took the AMC mantra too far when they deferred the revelation of the killer to Season 2.
[More]
As for <a href="http://www.amctv.com/shows/the-walking-dead" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (8 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC), I had to force myself through the first few episodes. By the end of the six-episode first season, I was glad I stuck with it -- I started to like the people and the beautifully realized world, right down to strategies on how to evade or kill zombies. "The Walking Dead" starts Season 2 at the same slow pace as always, but now I'm more engrossed.
"What Lies Ahead" is a simple but great "kid lost in the woods" story. As the group travels from Atlanta to Fort Benning, where they hope to find civilization, they run into a tipped-over semi truck. It's just an annoyance by zombie-apocalypse standards, because with the all the abandoned cars on the highway, they'll be able to scavenge for gas and other supplies, then double back to get around the roadblock. (A big question that wasn't answered in this episode or in "Talking Dead" after the show: Why are there intact corpses in several of the cars? Hopefully that will be answered in coming weeks.)
Then a pack of zombies comes along, and everyone has to hide under the nearest car. Carol is frustrated that she ends up under a different car than her scared daughter, Sophia, but luckily sheriff's wife Lori is on hand to muffle and pin down the mom. Unfortunately, in a zombie apocalypse you can count on a kid to do something stupid: Sophia leaves her hiding place too soon and she's pursued into the woods by a pack of zombies.
Sheriff Rick smartly diverts the zombies, but he loses Sophia in the process, so he and Daryl go on a search mission. An understated highlight of the episode is how Daryl -- despite being ticked off at the group for leaving his brother on a roof last season -- contributes his expert tracking skills. Additionally, he saves T-Dog (the guy who left Merle on the roof) by throwing a corpse on him as the zombies walk by, and he knows how to gut a zombie to make sure Sophia's not in its stomach. Daryl is starting to fit the profile of "Tough-talking guy who secretly has a heart of gold."
The search moves to a beautiful country church, and we get a great image of a handful of zombies scattered amidst the pews staring at a crucified Jesus (bring your own subtext). I assumed all along that the episode would end with Sophia safe and sound, and indeed, that would've been a perfectly satisfying way to start the season. But in an admirable twist, we never see Sophia again (I'm starting to wonder if we ever will, at least in human form), and we get another shock, too.
Like any good horror yarn, "Walking Dead's" deliberately paced scenes -- such as Rick and Shane stalking the woods, guns drawn -- gives me time to think "What's going to pop out at them?" and "When is it going to happen ... now? ... or now? ... or now?" The surprise finally comes when Rick and Lori's son, Carl, is accidentally shot by an off-screen hunter whom we'll presumably meet next week -- the bullet goes through a deer and into Carl's chest, missing his heart but seriously wounding him.
Peppered in with the search for Sophia, Season 1's character beats continue. The most eye-opening is when Andrea chews out Dale for not letting her commit suicide in the CDC explosion. Dale -- and I, and probably most viewers -- read that sequence as Dale saving a grief-stricken Andrea's life, but Andrea has an interesting alternate take: She says she saved Dale's life. She really did want to die, but forced her hand by staying with her, and she didn't want his blood on her hands when she checked out from this "endless horrific nightmare we live every day."
That thread gets tied up with another one: Broken-hearted Shane, the odd man out in the love triangle with Rick and Lori, plans to split from the group; Andrea wants to join him. Would "The Walking Dead" consider following two separate storylines in different geographic areas? It would open up the show a lot, but I doubt they'll go in that direction, if only for budgetary reasons.
As with the first season, "The Walking Dead" remains an exploration of how everyone handles a zombie apocalypse differently, combined with myth-arc questions such as "How many people survived the apocalypse?," "How will civilization rebuild?", and now, "What happened to those people in those cars?" "The Walking Dead" forces us to look ourselves in the mirror more than any other current show. It may be an "endless horrific nightmare" to Andrea, but there are times when I think this group doesn't have it so bad. There's the camaraderie, the common goal, the beauty of the natural world, and the simple pleasures of life. When they see that deer at the end, I thought -- up until the point where Carl is shot -- "Looks like they're going to enjoy a delicious meal of fresh venison for dinner before resuming the search tomorrow."
Yeah, "The Walking Dead" is slow-moving, but I'm starting to enjoy dawdling a bit in this world. If the apocalypse comes, I don't think I'd want to take the easy way out like Andrea; I'd stick around to see how this all plays out.
What were your thoughts on the Season 2 premiere of "The Walking Dead?" Share your thoughts in the comment thread.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheMon, 17 Oct 2011 01:52:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2011/10/17/First-episode-impressions-The-Walking-Dead-Season-2Should the ‘Walking Dead’ survivors have reason for hope?http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2010/12/7/Should-the-Walking-Dead-survivors-have-reason-for-hope
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead-2.jpg">
The first season (only six episodes) of <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-walking-dead/show/78582/summary.html?q=walking%20dead&tag=search_results;title;1
" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead"</a> (9 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC) has wrapped up, and a theme has emerged: Should the survivors be hopeful for the future of the human race, or not?
[More]
More on that in a minute, but first some thoughts on the final two episodes, where the gang journeys to a Centers for Disease Control location. In a broad sense, this storyline was the best of the series so far because it provided a definitive, goal-oriented plot: The group sought a base of refuge and information on progress toward a zombie cure.
These episodes are controversial among fans of the comic book. As Another Matt told me, the CDC saga was the first time the show diverged from the comic book with a new plot. He found the episodes weird, because he expected the plot to more or less follow the comic book. That might still happen at the start of Season 2, but regardless, the CDC eps will remain a controversial diversion.
Thematically, though, the CDC episodes give weight to "The Walking Dead." For the first time, it's about more than soap opera-ish love triangles and shooting zombies between the eyes. When Dr. Jenner calmly sits by and lets the CDC building count down to blowing up, the members of the gang frantically try to convince him to let them out: After all, he may have lost all hope, but they haven't.
Except that two of them HAVE given up hope, and they decide to commit suicide by exploding building: One is Jacqui, a woman that we (and the other characters) hadn't gotten to know. When she goes up with the building, it has little emotional weight.
The other is Andrea (Laurie Holden from "The X-Files"), who had to shoot her zombified younger sister Amy awhile back. Dale (Jeffrey DeMunn) had started to care for Andrea, so he plays the classic "Fine, if you're staying, I'm staying too" card to get her to stop the foolishness and leave with him.
So should this group of survivors have hope for the future?
As a viewer, I can objectively see the big picture, and I know the answer is yes. We have already seen many survivors in a small geographic area, so if you extrapolate that over the whole planet, there should be millions of humans still alive. And as time goes by, they will only get better at fighting off zombies, which are a very predictable enemy, after all. Just like an objective viewer, Rick and the gang should be able to do the math and realize they have plenty of reason to hope.
The flip side of that -- and something that's harder for a viewer to understand, unless the show is done extraordinarily well -- is that emotions often trump logic. Andrea may verbalize that there's no hope for humanity, but what she really means is that she misses her sister terribly.
Rick, in a moment of drunken honesty, confesses a feeling of hopelessness to Dr. Jenner, but he is luckier than Andrea in the sense that his wife and son are still alive and well. Regardless of his innermost fears, he comes off as an emotionally centered leader, and he should deliver a speech to the gang outlining the logical reasons for hope. Maybe that will happen at the start of Season 2.
I mentioned the notion that there are many other survivors out there. The gang has already met some fellow survivors on their journey, including a relatively thriving encampment in an Atlanta hospital. I think in Season 2 the gang should pick up some young adults who are having a hard time adjusting to the loss of all the technology we take for granted: The Internet, texting, iPods. I get a sense that the adults and the little kids are rather malleable, but I know I would miss the conveniences of civilization terribly if I was caught in a zombie apocalypse. It's perhaps even more extreme for today's tech-savvy teenager, and that age group was ignored in Season 1.
The "Andrea losing her sister" storyline is rather standard, and it doesn't even need a zombie apocalypse as a backdrop; it could happen in any TV show. But "people losing their way of life" is specific to a post-apocalyptic story, and "The Walking Dead" hasn't really touched on that yet. I think that's what Season 2 needs to explore: Can people adjust to this new, survival-oriented, communal lifestyle? If the answer is yes, then there is hope for humanity. If the answer is no, it could lead to more compelling, original stories than what we've seen so far.
In addition to that, Season 2 needs a goal. Season 1 really picked up for me when the gang traveled to the CDC location and some of the science of zombification was explored. Jenner mentioned that French scientists had made more progress than he had, so perhaps contacting other countries will be a goal for Rick's group.
I liked Season 1 as a launching pad, but I feel like "The Walking Dead" has the potential to get much better as it goes along. I guess you could say I'm holding out hope.
What is your final verdict on Season 1 of "The Walking Dead?" And what direction do you want Season 2 to go in? Share your comments below.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheTue, 07 Dec 2010 15:53:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2010/12/7/Should-the-Walking-Dead-survivors-have-reason-for-hopeFirst episode impressions: ‘The Walking Dead’http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2010/11/13/First-episode-impressions-The-Walking-Dead
<img src="http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/images//walking-dead.jpg">
Here are my first episode impressions of <a href="http://www.tv.com/the-walking-dead/show/78582/summary.html?q=walking%20dead&tag=search_results;title;1
" target="_blank">"The Walking Dead,"</a> which airs at 9 p.m. Central Sundays on AMC.
[More]
1. It looks like I'm in the minority on this one. "Walking Dead" is already a huge hit for AMC, and people seem to be loving it. It's certainly not bad; it has that same stamp of capital-Q Quality that the network asks of all its shows. But it's not notably good, either. It's about a sheriff's deputy who searches for his family even as zombies take over the planet (or at least the greater Atlanta area). "Walking Dead" is the first zombie-themed TV series, but the fresh medium hasn't translated into a fresh take on the concept, at least not yet.
2. Another Matt, a regular contributor to these comment threads, is a big fan of the "Walking Dead" comic, and he was happy to see it adapted into a TV show, feeling that is the appropriate medium. I agree; I've always thought that books should become movies and comic books should become TV series. That's part of why the "X-men" films leave me a bit cold, but if those yarns had been spread out over the course of a TV series, I probably would've dug it.
3. "Walking Dead" already has better (and more) zombies than last year's disappointing, sort-of-comedic film "Zombieland." The zombie effects might even be better than "28 Days Later" and "Shaun of the Dead." Particularly impressive are a couple shots of a half-zombie crawling along with guts hanging out of what should be its lower half. "Walking Dead" doesn't hide its effects under the cover of dim lighting; it often shows them off in broad daylight.
4. "Walking Dead" is completely bereft of humor. It plays it straight. There's a scene where Rick looks in the mirror and mumbles "Is this really happening?" He doesn't wake from a dream, his reflection keeps staring back at him and he knows it's real -- and we, as viewers, understand this is no "Shaun of the Dead" or "Zombieland." The closer comparison would be "28 Days Later," but that was relentlessly dark and stylized; "Walking Dead" wants to take place as much in reality as possible, and this includes hot, sunny days. The only sci-fi aspect is the zombies; everything else is on the straight and narrow.
5. I recognize a few faces. Lennie James from "Jericho" plays Morgan, Rick's first ally after he wakes up. Sarah Wayne Callies from "Prison Break" plays Rick's wife (in an odd choice, we don't see the two of them together in the pilot, so I only know they are husband and wife from reading up on the show). Jeffrey DeMunn, a veteran of many Stephen King movies, is among the Atlanta encampment of survivors. And I see that Laurie Holden from "The X-Files" is a cast member, although I don't remember her from the pilot.
6. "Walking Dead" is a deliberate character piece. In the hour-and-seven-minute pilot, we get to know Rick, then Morgan and his son, then -- rather briefly -- the Atlanta encampment. Even after such a long episode, it's clear viewers will have to come back next week to get to know the key Atlanta players. The problem is that Rick's and Morgan's stories are such zombie-yarn clichés (Rick seeks his family; Morgan can't bring himself to shoot his wife, who is now a zombie) that I'm not exactly hungering for more of this show's idea of character development.
Verdict: I'll try another episode or two because everyone keeps talking about how great this series is, and so I'll having something to chat about with Another Matt. At least the standard zombie story exposition is out of the way, so I think I'll like future episodes more than the pilot. However, I don't see greatness yet. Sorry.
TelevisionWalking Dead, TheSat, 13 Nov 2010 17:59:00 -0700http://www.johnvhansen.com/jvh/blog/index.cfm/2010/11/13/First-episode-impressions-The-Walking-Dead